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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/10/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 & 23-30 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, 14, 21, 23, 24 & 30 have been amended.
Rejections made to claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 & 23-30 under 35 USC 103 in the prior record Final Rejection dated 1/13/2026 have been withdrawn, but new grounds of rejections to these claims have been introduced under 35 USC 103 based on new reference Singh et al. (US 2019/0068678)(herein after “Singh”).
Rejections to claims 1, 3, 11, 13, 21, 23 & 30 under 35 USC 112(b) have been introduced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 11, 21 & 30, applicant argues that Sridhar fails to teach that RSRP or SINR measurements are made over a 1 ms to 100 ms duration because Sridhar only discloses bandwidth measurements made over the duration ranging from 1 ms to 100 ms. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that Fig 6 & [0033] of Sridhar discloses that information measured at blocks 605 (RSRP or SINR), 610 (Bandwidth) and 615 (Mobility) may all be used to select quality levels for subsequent video content, and thus a broadest reasonable interpretation would be that all measurements (i.e. RSRP or SINR, bandwidth and mobility measurements) would be taken over the same interval by starting a 1ms to 100 ms timer and complete making measurements prior to the expiration of the timer.).
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 3/10/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 & 23-30 under 35 USC 103 made in the prior record Final Rejection dated 1/13/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejections are made in view of new reference Singh et al. (US 2019/0068678)(herein after “Singh”).
Regarding claims 1, 11, 21 & 30, applicant submits that amendments to these claims traverse the rejections of these claims under 35 USC 103 made in the prior record Final Rejection dated 1/13/2026. Examiner agrees and withdraws rejections of these claims under 35 USC 103 made in the prior record Final Rejection dated 1/13/2026. However, after further consideration, examiner introduces new grounds of rejections of these claims under 35 USC 103 based on new reference Singh. Applicants arguments with respect to Kokkinen, Sridhar, Mani and Sodagar failing to disclose all the limitations in amended claims 1, 11, 21 & 30, and specifically failing to disclose the amended limitation “based at least in part on a packet drop rate of the first video quality satisfying a threshold for a duration of a timer”, have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejections do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claims 3-10, 13-20 & 23-29, applicant submits that these claims traverse the rejections of these claims under 35 USC 103 made in the prior record Final Rejection dated 1/13/2026 based on amendments and arguments made above for claims 1, 11 & 21, and due to their dependency on claims 1, 11 or 21. Examiner agrees and withdraws rejections of claims 1, 11, 21 & 30 under 35 USC 103 made in the prior record Final Rejection dated 1/13/2026, but for the same reasons as discussed above introduces new grounds of rejections of claims 3-10, 13-20 & 23-29 under 35 USC 103 based on new reference Singh.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 21, an apparatus for wireless communications at a first UE comprising “means for transmitting a request to a network entity to establish a voice communication session with a second UE”, “means for transmitting an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with a video service”, and “means for transmitting an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service” represent an apparatus modified by functional language, but not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions of the claimed apparatus. However, figs 3 & 4 and [0098] & [0100] of the current application specification disclose a device 405 that may represent a UE 115 that may include a transmitter 415 that provides a means for transmitting information such as packets, user data, control information, or any combination thereof associated with information channels related to managing quality for video service. Fig 7, [0123] & [0125] disclose that device 705, which may be an example of device 405, may include a transceiver 715 and antennas 725, wherein transceiver 715 may also include a modem to modulate packets and provide the modulated packets to one or more antennas 725 for transmission. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting “means for transmitting a request to a network entity to establish a voice communication session with a second UE”, “means for transmitting an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with a video service”, and “means for transmitting an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service” as being supported by structure disclosed by the current application specification consisting of a UE device including a transceiver (with a modem) and antennas for modulating and transmitting, by a UE device, packets requesting to a network entity to establish a voice communication session with a another UE device, packets providing an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with a video service, and packets providing an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service.
An apparatus for wireless communications at a first UE comprising “means for receiving one-way video transmissions associated with the video service” represent an apparatus modified by functional language, but not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions of the claimed apparatus. However, figs 3 & 4 and [0098] & [0099] of the current application specification disclose a device that may represent a UE 115 that may include a receiver 410 that provides a means for receiving information such as packets, user data, control information, or any combination thereof associated information channels related to managing quality for video service for the device. Fig 7, [0123] & [0125] disclose that device 705, which may be an example of device 405, may include a transceiver 715 and antennas 725, wherein transceiver 715 may also include a modem to demodulate packets received by one or more antennas 725. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting “means for receiving one-way video transmissions associated with the video service” as being supported by structure disclosed by the current application specification consisting of a UE device including a transceiver (with a modem) and antennas for receiving and demodulating, by a UE device, packets of one-way video transmissions associated with a video service.
An apparatus for wireless communications at a first UE comprising “means for starting a timer corresponding to the video service”, represent an apparatus modified by functional language, but not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions of the claimed apparatus. However, fig 3, 4 & 6 and [0112] of the current application specification disclose communication manager 620 that supports managing quality for video services, that may be an example of communications manager 420 that is included in a device that may represent a UE 115, that provides a means for performing a timer component 640. Fig 7 & [0123], [0125] & [0127] disclose a device 705 that supports managing quality of service for video services that includes a processor 740, that may include an intelligent hardware device such as DSP, CPU, ASIC or FPGA, for performing the various functions described in the current application (e.g. timer component 640). For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting “means for determining a timer corresponding to the video service” as being supported by structure disclosed by the current application specification consisting of a UE device including a processor that may be a DSP that starts a timer.
Regarding claim 23, the apparatus of claim 22 further comprising “means for starting the timer” represents an apparatus modified by functional language, but not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions of the claimed apparatus. However, fig 3, 4 & 6 and [0112] of the current application specification disclose communication manager 620 that supports managing quality for video services, that may be an example of communications manager 420 that is included in a device that may represent a UE 115, that provides a means for performing a timer component 640. Fig 7 & [0123], [0125] & [0127] disclose a device 705 that supports managing quality of service for video services that includes a processor 740, that may include an intelligent hardware device such as DSP, CPU, ASIC or FPGA, for performing the various functions described in the current application (e.g. timer component 640). For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting “means for determining a timer” as being supported by structure disclosed by the current application specification consisting of a UE device including a processor that may be a DSP that starts a timer.
The apparatus of claim 22 further comprising “means for determining the first video quality fails to satisfy the threshold video quality prior to expiration of the timer” represents an apparatus modified by functional language, but not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions of the claimed apparatus. However, fig 3, 4 & 6 and [0112] of the current application specification disclose communication manager 620 that supports managing quality for video services, that may be an example of communications manager 420 that is included in a device that may represent a UE 115, that provides a means for performing a timer component 640, that may be configured for determining a timer corresponding to a video service, and a video streaming parameter component 630, may be configured for transmitting (i.e. determining) an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based on the first video quality at the first UE failing to satisfy a threshold video quality at the first UE for the video service. Fig 7 & [0123], [0125] & [0127] disclose a device 705 that supports managing quality of service for video services that includes a processor 740, that may include an intelligent hardware device such as DSP, CPU, ASIC or FPGA, for performing the various functions described in the current application (e.g. timer component 640 & video streaming parameter component.). For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting “means for determining the first video quality fails to satisfy the threshold video quality prior to expiration of the timer” as being supported by structure disclosed by the current application specification consisting of a UE device including a processor that may be a DSP that determines a first video quality fails to satisfy a threshold video quality prior to expiration of a timer.
Regarding claim 24, the apparatus of claim 23 further comprising “means for restarting the timer” represents an apparatus modified by functional language, but not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions of the claimed apparatus. However, fig 3, 4 & 6 and [0112] of the current application specification disclose communication manager 620 that supports managing quality for video services, that may be an example of communications manager 420 that is included in a device that may represent a UE 115, that provides a means for performing a timer component 640. Fig 7 & [0123], [0125] & [0127] disclose a device 705 that supports managing quality of service for video services that includes a processor 740, that may include an intelligent hardware device such as DSP, CPU, ASIC or FPGA, for performing the various functions described in the current application (e.g. timer component 640). For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting “means for restarting the timer” as being supported by structure disclosed by the current application specification consisting of a UE device including a processor that may be a DSP that restarts a timer.
The apparatus of claim 23 further comprising “means for receiving the one-way video transmissions associated with the video service” represent an apparatus modified by functional language, but not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions of the claimed apparatus. However, figs 3 & 4 and [0098] & [0099] of the current application specification disclose a device that may represent a UE 115 that may include a receiver 410 that provides a means for receiving information such as packets, user data, control information, or any combination thereof associated information channels related to managing quality for video service for the device. Fig 7, [0123] & [0125] disclose that device 705, which may be an example of device 405, may include a transceiver 715 and antennas 725, wherein transceiver 715 may also include a modem to demodulate packets received by one or more antennas 725. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting “means for receiving one-way video transmissions associated with the video service” as being supported by structure disclosed by the current application specification consisting of a UE device including a transceiver (with a modem) and antennas for receiving and demodulating, by a UE device, packets of one-way video transmissions associated with a video service.
The apparatus of claim 23 further comprising “means for determining the second video quality fails to satisfy the threshold video quality prior to expiration of the timer” represents an apparatus modified by functional language, but not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions of the claimed apparatus. However, fig 3, 4 & 6 and [0112] of the current application specification disclose communication manager 620 that supports managing quality for video services, that may be an example of communications manager 420 that is included in a device that may represent a UE 115, that provides a means for performing a timer component 640, that may be configured for determining a timer corresponding to a video service, and a video streaming parameter component 630, may be configured for transmitting (i.e. determining) an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based on the first video quality at the first UE failing to satisfy a threshold video quality at the first UE for the video service. Fig 7 & [0123], [0125] & [0127] disclose a device 705 that supports managing quality of service for video services that includes a processor 740, that may include an intelligent hardware device such as DSP, CPU, ASIC or FPGA, for performing the various functions described in the current application (e.g. timer component 640 & video streaming parameter component.). For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting “means for determining the first video quality fails to satisfy the threshold video quality prior to expiration of the timer” as being supported by structure disclosed by the current application specification consisting of a UE device including a processor that may be a DSP that determines a second video quality fails to satisfy a threshold video quality prior to expiration of a timer.
The apparatus of claim 23 further comprising “means for transmitting an additional indication of a third video streaming parameter” represents an apparatus modified by functional language, but not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions of the claimed apparatus. However, figs 3 & 4 and [0098] & [0100] of the current application specification disclose a device 405 that may represent a UE 115 that may include a transmitter 415 that provides a means for transmitting information such as packets, user data, control information, or any combination thereof associated with information channels related to managing quality for video service. Fig 7, [0123] & [0125] disclose that device 705, which may be an example of device 405, may include a transceiver 715 and antennas 725, wherein transceiver 715 may also include a modem to modulate packets and provide the modulated packets to one or more antennas 725 for transmission. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting “means for transmitting an additional indication of a third video streaming parameter” as being supported by structure disclosed by the current application specification consisting of a UE device including a transceiver (with a modem) and antennas for modulating and transmitting, by a UE device, packets for providing an additional indication of a third video streaming parameter.
Regarding claim 25, the apparatus of claim 21, further comprising “means for receiving one-way video transmissions associated with the video service” represent an apparatus modified by functional language, but not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions of the claimed apparatus. However, figs 3 & 4 and [0098] & [0099] of the current application specification disclose a device that may represent a UE 115 that may include a receiver 410 that provides a means for receiving information such as packets, user data, control information, or any combination thereof associated information channels related to managing quality for video service for the device. Fig 7, [0123] & [0125] disclose that device 705, which may be an example of device 405, may include a transceiver 715 and antennas 725, wherein transceiver 715 may also include a modem to demodulate packets received by one or more antennas 725. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting “means for receiving one-way video transmissions associated with the video service” as being supported by structure disclosed by the current application specification consisting of a UE device including a transceiver (with a modem) and antennas for receiving and demodulating, by a UE device, packets of one-way video transmissions associated with a video service.
Regarding claim 26, the apparatus of claim 21, further comprising “means for receiving one-way video transmissions associated with the video service” represent an apparatus modified by functional language, but not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions of the claimed apparatus. However, figs 3 & 4 and [0098] & [0099] of the current application specification disclose a device that may represent a UE 115 that may include a receiver 410 that provides a means for receiving information such as packets, user data, control information, or any combination thereof associated information channels related to managing quality for video service for the device. Fig 7, [0123] & [0125] disclose that device 705, which may be an example of device 405, may include a transceiver 715 and antennas 725, wherein transceiver 715 may also include a modem to demodulate packets received by one or more antennas 725. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting “means for receiving one-way video transmissions associated with the video service” as being supported by structure disclosed by the current application specification consisting of a UE device including a transceiver (with a modem) and antennas for receiving and demodulating, by a UE device, packets of one-way video transmissions associated with a video service.
The apparatus of claim 21 further comprising “means for determining the second video quality fails to satisfy the second video streaming parameter” represents an apparatus modified by functional language, but not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions of the claimed apparatus. However, fig 3, 4 & 6 and [0112]-[0113] of the current application specification disclose communication manager 620 that supports managing quality for video services, that may be an example of communications manager 420 that is included in a device that may represent a UE 115, that provides a means for performing a video streaming parameter component 630, that may be configured for transmitting (i.e. determining) an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based on the first video quality fails to satisfy a threshold video quality at the first UE for the video service. Fig 7 & [0123], [0125] & [0127] disclose a device 705 that supports managing quality of service for video services that includes a processor 740, that may include an intelligent hardware device such as DSP, CPU, ASIC or FPGA, for performing the various functions described in the current application (e.g. video streaming parameter component.). For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting “means for determining the second video quality fails to satisfy the second video streaming parameter” as being supported by structure disclosed by the current application specification consisting of a UE device including a processor that may be a DSP that determines a second video quality fails to satisfy a threshold video quality based on a second video streaming parameter.
The apparatus of claim 21 further comprising “means for transmitting an additional indication of a third video streaming parameter” represents an apparatus modified by functional language, but not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions of the claimed apparatus. However, figs 3 & 4 and [0098] & [0100] of the current application specification disclose a device 405 that may represent a UE 115 that may include a transmitter 415 that provides a means for transmitting information such as packets, user data, control information, or any combination thereof associated with information channels related to managing quality for video service. Fig 7, [0123] & [0125] disclose that device 705, which may be an example of device 405, may include a transceiver 715 and antennas 725, wherein transceiver 715 may also include a modem to modulate packets and provide the modulated packets to one or more antennas 725 for transmission. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting “means for transmitting an additional indication of a third video streaming parameter” as being supported by structure disclosed by the current application specification consisting of a UE device including a transceiver (with a modem) and antennas for modulating and transmitting, by a UE device, packets for providing an additional indication of a third video streaming parameter.
Regarding claim 27, the apparatus of claim 21 further comprising “means for determining that the second video streaming parameter comprises a lowest configured video streaming threshold for the first UE” represents an apparatus modified by functional language, but not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions of the claimed apparatus. However, fig 3, 4 & 6 and [0112]-[0113] & [0119] of the current application specification disclose communication manager 620 that supports managing quality for video services, that may be an example of communications manager 420 that is included in a device that may represent a UE 115, that provides a means for performing a video streaming parameter component 630, that may be configured for determining that the second video streaming parameter includes a lowest configured video streaming threshold for the first UE. Fig 7 & [0123], [0125] & [0127] disclose a device 705 that supports managing quality of service for video services that includes a processor 740, that may include an intelligent hardware device such as DSP, CPU, ASIC or FPGA, for performing the various functions described in the current application (e.g. video streaming parameter component.). For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting “means for determining that the second video streaming parameter comprises a lowest configured video streaming threshold for the first UE” as being supported by structure disclosed by the current application specification consisting of a UE device including a processor that may be a DSP that determines a second video streaming parameter comprises a lowest configured video streaming threshold for the first UE.
The apparatus of claim 21 further comprising “means for transmitting, to the network entity, an indication to disable the video service” represents an apparatus modified by functional language, but not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions of the claimed apparatus. However, figs 3 & 4 and [0098] & [0100] of the current application specification disclose a device 405 that may represent a UE 115 that may include a transmitter 415 that provides a means for transmitting information such as packets, user data, control information, or any combination thereof associated with information channels related to managing quality for video service. Fig 7, [0123] & [0125] disclose that device 705, which may be an example of device 405, may include a transceiver 715 and antennas 725, wherein transceiver 715 may also include a modem to modulate packets and provide the modulated packets to one or more antennas 725 for transmission. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting “means for transmitting, to the network entity, an indication to disable the video service” as being supported by structure disclosed by the current application specification consisting of a UE device including a transceiver (with a modem) and antennas for modulating and transmitting, by a UE device, packets for providing an indication to disable the video service.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 11, 13, 21, 23 & 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 11, 13, 21, 23 & 30, claims 1, 11, 21 & 30 recite the limitation “… based at least in part on a packet drop rate of the first video quality satisfying a threshold for a duration of the timer” and claims 3, 13 & 23 recite the limitation “determining the packet drop rate satisfies the threshold prior to expiration of the timer, wherein transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter is based at least in part on the packet drop rate satisfying the threshold prior to expiration of the timer”. It is unclear whether a packet drop rate satisfies a threshold by exceeding the threshold or failing to exceed the threshold. In general, large packet drop rates lead to poor performance and small packet drops rates lead to good performance. Thus, a packet drop rate satisfying a threshold would generally be interpreted as being less than a threshold. For example, [0024] of the current application specification recites that a UE may transmit a request to reduce a video quality if a dropping rate fails to satisfy a threshold video quality for a duration of a timer, which implies that a drop rate failing to satisfy a threshold would be when the drop rate exceeds the threshold and a drop rate satisfying the threshold would be when a drop rate fails to exceed the threshold. This is the opposite of what is recited in these claims where a packet drop rate satisfying a threshold is to be interpreted as exceeding the threshold (e.g. see [0077] of the current application specification where an updated codec is based on a drop rate being greater than 3% in 2 seconds). For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting the limitations in these claims as “… based at least in part on a packet drop rate of the first video quality exceeding a threshold for a duration of the timer” and “determining the packet drop rate exceeds the threshold prior to expiration of the timer, wherein transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter is based at least in part on the packet drop rate exceeding the threshold prior to expiration of the timer”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11. 13-16, 19-21, 23-26, 29 & 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokkinen et al. (US 2005/0105706)(herein after “Kokkinen”) in view of Sridhar et al. (US 2016/0105671)(herein after “Sridhar”), and further in view of Singh et al. (US 2019/0068678)(herein after “Singh”).
Regarding claim 1, Kokkinen discloses a method for wireless communications at a first user equipment (UE),comprising: transmitting a request to a network entity to establish a voice communication session with a second UE (Fig 3, Fig 4 & [0055]-[0056] disclose a first Party A 396 transmitting a request via BSS 315 to MSC 335 to attempt to place a call to second wired subscriber 303.);
configuring a video service for streaming one-way video transmissions from the network entity to the first UE for display at the first UE during establishment of the voice communication session with the second UE based at least in part on a subscription of the second UE to the video service (Fig 4 & [0057] disclose an Intelligent Network (IN) providing information (i.e. configuring) to SRP375 for a one-way transmission from SRP 375 or network entity MSC 335 to first Party A 396 that can be a message, announcement or other output concurrently with MSC 335 attempting to establish the setup with second wired subscriber 303. [0019] & [0081] disclose that the message, announcement or other output may be visual output or video. [0018] discloses that the message, announcement or outer output (e.g. video) may be a based on a subscriber of a service (e.g. a subscription of second wired subscriber to a video service that provides a video stream to calling first Party A 396 while a voice call is being established).);
receiving one-way video transmissions associated with the video service during the establishment of the voice communication session with the second UE (Fig 4 & [0057] disclose first Party A 396 receiving one-way transmission from SRP 375 to first Party A 396 of a message, announcement or other output concurrently with MSC 335 attempting to establish the setup with second wired subscriber 303. [0019] & [0081] disclose that the message, announcement or other output may be visual output or video.); and
Kokkinen fails to disclose transmitting an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with a video service; wherein the one-way video transmissions have a first video quality at the first UE; starting a timer corresponding to the video service; and transmitting an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based at least in part on the first video quality at the first UE failing to satisfy a threshold video quality at the first UE for the video service for a duration of the timer.
However, Sridhar teaches transmitting an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with a video service ([0008] discloses an apparatus that can transmit a request for a first segment of video content to be encoded at a first quality level (i.e. an indication of a first video streaming parameter of a first quality level). [0005] discloses that a client may first request the lowest quality level when the client has not yet received any video segments.);
wherein the one-way video transmissions have a first video quality at the first UE (Fig 6 & [0032] disclose a client measuring an RSRP or SINR based on signals received from a base station (e.g. first video quality based on the one-way video transmission).);
starting a timer corresponding to the video service ([0033] discloses that a client may determine that the cell is congested if a measured bandwidth is less than a bandwidth required to transmit the video at the requested quality level. Fig 6 & [0032] disclose that measured bandwidth can be based on averaging a number of video content bits received over a number of PRBs, averaged over a time interval ranging from 1 ms to 100 ms (i.e. UE would start a 1ms to 100ms timer to measure and calculate the measured bandwidth of the video service). Note that in the case where the timer is 1 ms, this may correspond to no averaging (i.e. a single PRB may be only 1 ms in duration). Thus, Sridhar teaches of starting a 1 ms timer corresponding to measuring bandwidth for a video service.);
transmitting an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying a threshold for a duration of the timer (Fig 6 & [0033]-[0036] disclose the client may use the RSRP or SINR measurements made over a 1 ms duration (i.e. a single PRB) to transmit a request for different selected quality levels (e.g. transmit a second video streaming parameter of a second quality level based on the first video quality measured by the client). The request for different selected quality levels may be based on the RSRP or SINR (measured over the 1 ms time duration) being compared to a threshold where if the RSRP or SINR is above the threshold it is determined that the client is near the center of a cell (i.e. if the RSRP or SINR fails to satisfy the threshold then the client determines it is not near the center of the cell). Clients that are not near the center of the cell, but also not in handover, may request a lower quality level if the client determines the cell may be congested. The client may determine that the cell is congested if a measured bandwidth for the duration of the 1 ms timer is less than a bandwidth required to transmit the video at the requested quality level (i.e. compare measured bandwidth to a required bandwidth threshold). Fig 6 & [0033] discloses that information measured at blocks 605 (RSRP or SINR), 610 (Bandwidth) and 615 (Mobility) may all be used to select quality levels for subsequent video content, and thus a broadest reasonable interpretation would be that all measurements (i.e. RSRP or SINR, bandwidth and mobility measurements) would be taken over the same interval by starting a 1ms to 100 ms timer and complete making measurements prior to the expiration of the timer.). Thus disclosed is a client transmitting to a cell an indication of a lower video quality level (i.e. a second video streaming parameter) associated with video service based in part on the cell being congested (measured bandwidth over 1 ms duration being below a required bandwidth threshold) and in part on an RSRP or SINR measurement over a 1 ms duration not satisfying a threshold for being located near a cell to provide a desired video quality at the client for the video service.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a method where a first UE is receiving a video service, wherein the video service is configured for streaming one-way video, as disclosed by Kokkinen, and transmitting an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with the video service; wherein the one-way video transmissions have a first video quality at the first UE; starting a timer corresponding to the video service; and transmitting an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying a threshold for a duration of the timer, as taught by Sridhar. The motivation to do so would be to have a method where a UE can request, to a cell, a video content at a first video quality level, receive a video stream based on the first requested video level and start a 1 ms timer to measure the quality of the video stream by determining congestion in the cell for the duration of the 1 ms timer and comparing RSRP or SINR measured over the 1 ms duration to a threshold and subsequently send a second request to the cell for a lower video quality if the RSRP or SINR measurements are below the threshold and there is determined to be congestion in the cell, to avoid video stalling.
Kokkinen fails to disclose but Singh further teaches wherein first video quality not satisfying a threshold may be substituted by a packet drop rate of the first video quality satisfying a threshold (Fig 3 & [0060]-[0061] disclose that an encoding mode may be determined by an encoding configuration component 380 based, at least in part, on network performance information 395 at a receiving client device 325. [0057] & [0062] discloses that an initial sending configuration 385 may be assigned to a media component 340 independent of network performance information, and based on network performance information 390 indicating a packet loss rate above a predefined packet loss threshold, a encoding configuration component 380 may assign an all-intra-coded mode (i.e. a second video streaming parameter) to media component 340. Thus, Singh discloses wherein a packet loss rate being above a threshold is used in place of a video quality not satisfying a threshold as a basis for indicating a second video streaming parameter.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a method where a first UE is receiving a video service, wherein the video service is configured for streaming one-way video, transmitting an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with a video service; wherein the one-way video transmissions have a first video quality at the first UE; starting a timer corresponding to the video service; and transmitting an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying a threshold for a duration of the timer, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar, wherein first video quality not satisfying a threshold may be substituted by a packet drop rate of the first video quality satisfying a threshold, as further taught by Singh. The motivation to do so would be to have a method where a UE can request, to a cell, a video content at a first video quality level, receive a video stream based on the first requested video level and start a 1 ms timer to measure the quality of the video stream by comparing a packet drop rate measured over the 1 ms duration to a threshold and subsequently send a second request to the cell for a lower video quality if the packet drop rate exceeds the threshold, to avoid video stalling.
Regarding claims 3 & 13, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar disclose the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 11.
Kokkinen discloses further comprising, or wherein the instructions of the apparatus are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to have: a time period based at least in part on transmitting the request to establish the voice communication session ([0003] discloses a first party initiating the establishment of a communication link (e.g. voice communication session) and a time period representing a delay between initiating the establishment of the communication link and establishing the communication link. [0007] discloses determination of establishment of the communication link based on the time a destination party answers a communication request.).
Kokkinen fails to disclose starting a timer; and determining the first video quality does not satisfy the threshold prior to expiration of the timer, wherein transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter is based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying the threshold prior to expiration of the timer.
However, Sridhar teaches starting a timer ([0033] discloses that a client may determine that the cell is congested if a measured bandwidth is less than a bandwidth required to transmit the video at the requested quality level. Fig 6 & [0032] disclose that measured bandwidth can be based on averaging a number of video content bits received over a number of PRBs, averaged over a time interval ranging from 1 ms to 100 ms (i.e. UE would start a 1ms to 100ms timer to measure and calculate the measured bandwidth of the video service). Note that in the case where the timer is 1 ms, this may correspond to no averaging (i.e. a single PRB may be only 1 ms in duration). Broadest reasonable interpretation would be that the RSRP or SINR measurements would also be taken by starting a timer for the same 1ms to 100ms timer interval. Note that it would be obvious to have the timer taught by Sridhar start at the beginning of the time period where the first party initiates a communication link as disclosed by Kokkinen.); and
determining the first video quality does not satisfy the threshold prior to expiration of the timer, wherein transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter is based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying the threshold prior to expiration of the timer (Fig 6 & [0033]-[0036] a request for different selected quality levels may be based on the RSRP or SINR being compared to a threshold where if the RSRP or SINR is above the threshold it is determined that the client is near the center of a cell (i.e. if the RSRP or SINR fails to satisfy the threshold then the client determines it is not near the center of the cell). Clients that are not near the center of the cell, but also not in handover, may request a lower quality level if the client determines the cell may be congested. The client may determine that the cell is congested if a measured bandwidth is less than a bandwidth required to transmit the video at the requested quality level (i.e. compare measured bandwidth to a required bandwidth threshold). Fig 6 & [0032] disclose that measured bandwidth can be based on averaging a number of video content bits received over a number of PRBs, averaged over a time interval ranging from 1 ms to 100 ms (i.e. UE would start a 1 ms to 100 ms timer and complete making measurements prior to the expiration of the timer). Note that in the case where the timer is 1 ms, this may correspond to no averaging (i.e. a single PRB may be only 1 ms in duration). Fig 6 & [0033] discloses that information measured at blocks 605 (RSRP or SINR), 610 (Bandwidth) and 615 (Mobility) may all be used to select quality levels for subsequent video content, and thus a broadest reasonable interpretation would be that all measurements (i.e. RSRP or SINR, bandwidth and mobility measurements) would be taken over the same interval by starting a 1ms to 100 ms timer and complete making measurements prior to the expiration of the timer.). Thus disclosed is determining a first video quality based on measured bandwidth/congestion and RSRP or SINR that does not satisfy thresholds for video quality and completing making measurements prior to a 1ms to 100ms timer expiring.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 1 further comprising, or the apparatus of claim 11 wherein the instructions of the apparatus are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to have, a time period based on transmitting a request to establish a voice communication session, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar, and further comprising, or wherein the instructions of the apparatus are further executable by the one or more processors which causes: starting a timer; and determining the first video quality does not satisfy the threshold prior to expiration of the timer, wherein transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter is based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying the threshold prior to expiration of the timer, as taught by Sridhar. The motivation to do so would be to have a method, or an apparatus for a UE, where the UE initiates a voice communication link, begins receiving a video stream while establishing the voice communication link and starts a 1ms timer to make measurements of bandwidth and RSRP or SINR over 1ms time intervals during which a network is establishing the voice communication link, so that the UE can determine average video quality of the video stream and make requests to the network, prior to expiration of the 1 ms timer, to lower video quality when the UE determines the average video quality metrics (i.e. bandwidth and RSRP or SINR) are below certain thresholds to avoid video stalling.
Kokkinen fails to disclose but Singh further teaches wherein the first video quality does not satisfy, or the first video quality not satisfying, the threshold may be substituted by the packet drop rate satisfies, or the packet drop rate satisfying, the threshold (Fig 3 & [0060]-[0061] disclose that an encoding mode may be determined by an encoding configuration component 380 based, at least in part, on network performance information 395 at a receiving client device 325. [0057] & [0062] discloses that an initial sending configuration 385 may be assigned to a media component 340 independent of network performance information, and based on network performance information 390 indicating a packet loss rate above a predefined packet loss threshold, a encoding configuration component 380 may assign an all-intra-coded mode (i.e. a second video streaming parameter) to media component 340. Thus, Singh discloses wherein a packet loss rate being above a threshold is used in place of a video quality not satisfying a threshold to as a basis for indicating a second video streaming parameter.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 1, or the apparatus of claim 11, further comprising a time period based on transmitting a request to establish a voice communication session; starting a timer; and determining the first video quality does not satisfy the threshold prior to expiration of the timer, wherein transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter is based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying the threshold prior to expiration of the timer, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar, wherein the first video quality does not satisfy, or the first video quality not satisfying, the threshold may be substituted by the packet drop rate satisfies, or the packet drop rate satisfying, the threshold, as further taught by Singh. The motivation to do so would be to have a method, or an apparatus at a UE, where the UE initiates a voice communication link, begins receiving a video stream while establishing the voice communication link and starts a 1ms timer to make packet drop rate measurements over 1ms time intervals during which a network is establishing the voice communication link, so that the UE can determine average video quality of the video stream based on the packet drop rate measurements and make requests to the network, prior to expiration of the 1 ms timer, to lower video quality when the UE determines the packet drop rate measurements exceed thresholds, to avoid video stalling.
Regarding claim 4, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the method of claim 3.
Kokkinen fails to disclose further comprising: restarting the timer based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter prior to expiration of the timer; receiving the one-way video transmissions associated with the video service according to a second video quality; determining the second video quality fails to satisfy the second video streaming parameter prior to expiration of the restarted timer; and transmitting an additional indication of a third video streaming parameter based at least in part on the second video quality failing to satisfy the second video streaming parameter.
However, based on the above discussions for claims 1-4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to merely repeat the method discussed in this paragraph above using a second timer, second video streaming parameter, second video quality and third video streaming parameter, since it has been held (see MPEP Section 2144.04, subsection VI.B) that “mere duplication of parts that does not produce new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art and thus has no patentable significance” - In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The motivation to do so would be to have a method where a UE initiates a voice communication link, begins receiving a video stream while establishing the voice communication link and repeatedly starts a timer to make measurements of bandwidth and RSRP or SINR every 1ms time intervals during which a network is establishing the voice communication link, so that the UE can determine average video quality of the video stream and make requests to the network to lower video quality when the UE determines the average video quality metrics (i.e. bandwidth and RSRP or SINR) over any of the 1ms time intervals are below certain thresholds to avoid video stalling.
Regarding claim 5, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the method of claim 1.
Kokkinen fails to disclose further comprising: receiving the one-way video transmissions associated with the video service according to a second video quality based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter, the second video quality satisfying the second video streaming parameter.
However, based on the above discussions for claims 1 & 5, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the method of claim 1 further comprising receiving the one-way video transmissions associated with the video service according to a first video quality based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the first video streaming parameter, the first video quality satisfying the first video streaming parameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to merely repeat the method discussed in this paragraph above using a second video streaming parameter and second video quality, since it has been held (see MPEP Section 2144.04, subsection VI.B) that “mere duplication of parts that does not produce new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art and thus has no patentable significance” - In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The motivation to do so would be to have a method where a UE begins receiving a video stream at a first requested video quality, makes measurements of bandwidth and RSRP or SINR of the video stream received at the first video quality level, determines that the measured bandwidth and RSRP or SINR are below certain thresholds and in response requests a second video quality level lower than the first quality level and then receives the video stream at the lower second requested video level to avoid video stalling.
Regarding claim 6, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the method of claim 1.
Kokkinen fails to disclose further comprising: receiving the one-way video transmissions associated with the video service according to a second video quality based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter; determining the second video quality fails to satisfy the second video streaming parameter; and transmitting an additional indication of a third video streaming parameter based at least in part on determining the second video quality fails to satisfy the second video streaming parameter.
Based on the above discussions for claims 1 & 6, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose receiving a one-way video transmissions associated with a video service according to a first video quality based at least in part on transmitting the indication of a first video streaming parameter; and determining the first video quality fails to satisfy the first video streaming parameter; and transmitting an indication of a second video streaming parameter based at least in part on determining the first video quality fails to satisfy the first video streaming parameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to merely repeat the method discussed in this paragraph above using a second video quality and second & third video streaming parameters, since it has been held (see MPEP Section 2144.04, subsection VI.B) that “mere duplication of parts that does not produce new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art and thus has no patentable significance” - In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The motivation to do so would be to have a method where a UE repeatedly receives video stream segments transmitted by a base station, determines average video quality of each video stream segment and make requests to the network to lower video quality when the UE determines the average video quality metrics (i.e. bandwidth and RSRP or SINR) are below certain thresholds during any one of the video stream segments to avoid video stalling.
Regarding claim 9, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the method of claim 1.
Kokkinen fails to disclose wherein the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a quality of service, a bandwidth, a bit rate, a video resolution, or a combination thereof.
However, Sridhar teaches wherein the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a quality of service, a bandwidth, a bit rate, a video resolution, or a combination thereof ([0008] discloses an apparatus that can transmit a request for a first segment of video content to be encoded at a first quality level (i.e. quality of service parameter). [0025] discloses that the choice of quality level requested may be associated with an encoded bitrate that requires a bandwidth less than an available bandwidth.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 1, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh, wherein the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a quality of service, a bandwidth, a bit rate, a video resolution, or a combination thereof, as taught by Sridhar. The motivation to do so would be to have a method where a UE can provide a request for a quality level associated with an encoded bit rate to be transmitted by a base station that requires lower channel bandwidth than the available channel bandwidth so that the UEs video buffer does not overflow and cause stalling.
Regarding claim 10, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the method of claim 1.
Kokkinen discloses wherein the video service is a customized alerting tone service ([0081] discloses a feedback message (i.e. alerting message) to a calling party can be a video. [0022] discloses that output provided to the calling party can be customized for special occasion such as a “Happy Birthday” ringback tone.).
Regarding claim 11, Kokkinen discloses an apparatus for wireless communications at a first user equipment (UE) comprised to: transmit a request to a network entity to establish a voice communication session with a second UE (Fig 3, Fig 4 & [0055]-[0056] disclose a first Party A 396 transmitting a request via BSS 315 to MSC 335 to attempt to place a call to second wired subscriber 303.);
configure a video service for streaming one-way video transmissions from the network entity to the first UE for display at the first UE during establishment of the voice communication session with the second UE based at least in part on a subscription of the second UE to the video service (Fig 4 & [0057] disclose an Intelligent Network (IN) providing information (i.e. configuring) to SRP375 for a one-way transmission from SRP 375 or network entity MSC 335 to first Party A 396 that can be a message, announcement or other output concurrently with MSC 335 attempting to establish the setup with second wired subscriber 303. [0019] & [0081] disclose that the message, announcement or other output may be visual output or video. [0018] discloses that the message, announcement or outer output (e.g. video) may be a based on a subscriber of a service (e.g. a subscription of second wired subscriber to a video service that provides a video stream to calling first Party A 396 while a voice call is being established).);
receive one-way video transmissions associated with the video service during the establishment of the voice communication session with the second UE, the one-way video transmissions having a first video quality at the first UE (Fig 4 & [0057] disclose first Party A 396 receiving one-way transmission from SRP 375 to first Party A 396 of a message, announcement or other output concurrently with MSC 335 attempting to establish the setup with second wired subscriber 303. [0019] & [0081] disclose that the message, announcement or other output may be visual output or video.); and
Kokkinen fails to disclose an apparatus at a UE comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors, the one or more memories storing instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to perform the functions in this claim that are disclosed by Kokkinen and: transmit an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with the video service; wherein the one-way video transmissions have a first video quality at the first UE; start a timer corresponding to the video service; and transmit an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based at least in part on the first video quality at the first UE failing to satisfy a threshold video quality at the first UE for the video service for a duration of the timer.
However, Sridhar teaches an apparatus at a UE comprising: one or more processors (Fig 7 & [0042] disclose a UE with a processor 750.); and
One or more memories coupled with the one or more processors, the one or more memories storing instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to perform the functions in this claim that are disclosed by Kokkinen (Fig 7 & [0042] disclose memory 755 coupled to processor 750 to implement an operating system. Fig 7 & [0042] disclose processor 750 may execute instructions stored in memory 755 that may perform the functions in this claim that are disclosed by Kokkinen.) and to cause the apparatus to:
transmit an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with the video service ([0008] discloses an apparatus that can transmit a request for a first segment of video content to be encoded at a first quality level (i.e. an indication of a first video streaming parameter of a first quality level). [0005] discloses that a client may first request the lowest quality level when the client has not yet received any video segments.);
wherein the one-way video transmissions have a first video quality at the first UE (Fig 6 & [0032] disclose a client measuring an RSRP or SINR based on signals received from a base station (e.g. first video quality based on the one-way video transmission).);
start a timer corresponding to the video service ([0033] discloses that a client may determine that the cell is congested if a measured bandwidth is less than a bandwidth required to transmit the video at the requested quality level. Fig 6 & [0032] disclose that measured bandwidth can be based on averaging a number of video content bits received over a number of PRBs, averaged over a time interval ranging from 1 ms to 100 ms (i.e. UE would start a 1ms to 100ms timer to measure and calculate the measured bandwidth of the video service). Note that in the case where the timer is 1 ms, this may correspond to no averaging (i.e. a single PRB may be only 1 ms in duration). Thus, Sridhar teaches of starting a 1 ms timer corresponding to measuring bandwidth for a video service.); and
transmit an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying a threshold for a duration of the timer (Fig 6 & [0033]-[0036] disclose the client may use the RSRP or SINR measurements made over a 1 ms duration (i.e. a single PRB) to transmit a request for different selected quality levels (e.g. transmit a second video streaming parameter of a second quality level based on the first video quality measured by the client). The request for different selected quality levels may be based on the RSRP or SINR, measured over the 1 ms time duration) being compared to a threshold where if the RSRP or SINR is above the threshold it is determined that the client is near the center of a cell (i.e. if the RSRP or SINR fails to satisfy the threshold then the client determines it is not near the center of the cell). Clients that are not near the center of the cell, but also not in handover, may request a lower quality level if the client determines the cell may be congested. The client may determine that the cell is congested if a measured bandwidth for the duration of the 1 ms timer is less than a bandwidth required to transmit the video at the requested quality level (i.e. compare measured bandwidth to a required bandwidth threshold). Fig 6 & [0033] discloses that information measured at blocks 605 (RSRP or SINR), 610 (Bandwidth) and 615 (Mobility) may all be used to select quality levels for subsequent video content, and thus a broadest reasonable interpretation would be that all measurements (i.e. RSRP or SINR, bandwidth and mobility measurements) would be taken over the same interval by starting a 1ms to 100 ms timer and complete making measurements prior to the expiration of the timer.). Thus disclosed is a client transmitting to a cell an indication of a lower video quality level (i.e. a second video streaming parameter) associated with video service based in part on the cell being congested (measured bandwidth over 1 ms duration being below a required bandwidth threshold) and in part on an RSRP or SINR measurement over a 1 ms duration not satisfying a threshold for being located near a cell to provide a desired video quality at the client for the video service.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an apparatus for wireless communications at a first UE, where the first UE receives a video service, wherein the video service is configured for streaming one-way video, as disclosed by Kokkinen, and transmits an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with the video service; wherein the one-way video transmissions have a first video quality at the first UE; starts a timer corresponding to the video service; and transmits an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying a threshold for a duration of the timer, as taught by Sridhar. The motivation to do so would be to have an apparatus for wireless communications at a UE where the UE can request, to a cell, a video content at a first video quality level, receive a video stream based on the first requested video level and start a 1 ms timer to measure the quality of the video stream by determining congestion in the cell for the duration of the 1 ms timer and comparing RSRP or SINR measured over the 1 ms duration to a threshold and subsequently send a second request to the cell for a lower video quality if the RSRP or SINR measurements are below the threshold and there is determined to be congestion in the cell, to avoid video stalling.
Kokkinen fails to disclose but Singh further teaches wherein first video quality not satisfying a threshold may be substituted by a packet drop rate of the first video quality satisfying a threshold (Fig 3 & [0060]-[0061] disclose that an encoding mode may be determined by an encoding configuration component 380 based, at least in part, on network performance information 395 at a receiving client device 325. [0057] & [0062] discloses that an initial sending configuration 385 may be assigned to a media component 340 independent of network performance information, and based on network performance information 390 indicating a packet loss rate above a predefined packet loss threshold, a encoding configuration component 380 may assign an all-intra-coded mode (i.e. a second video streaming parameter) to media component 340. Thus, Singh discloses wherein a packet loss rate being above a threshold is used in place of a video quality not satisfying a threshold as a basis for indicating a second video streaming parameter.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an apparatus for wireless communications at a first UE, where the first UE receives a video service, wherein the video service is configured for streaming one-way video; transmits an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with a video service, wherein the one-way video transmissions have a first video quality at the first UE; starts a timer corresponding to the video service; and transmitting an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying a threshold for a duration of the timer, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar, wherein first video quality not satisfying a threshold may be substituted by a packet drop rate of the first video quality satisfying a threshold, as further taught by Singh. The motivation to do so would be to have an apparatus for communications at a UE, where the UE can request, to a cell, a video content at a first video quality level, receive a video stream based on the first requested video level and start a 1 ms timer to measure the quality of the video stream by comparing a packet drop rate measured over the 1 ms duration to a threshold and subsequently send a second request to the cell for a lower video quality if the packet drop rate exceeds the threshold, to avoid video stalling.
Regarding claim 14, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the apparatus of claim 13.
Kokkinen in view of Sridhar fail to disclose wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: restart the timer based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter prior to expiration of the timer; receive the one-way video transmissions associated with the video service according to a second video quality; determine the second video quality fails to satisfy the second video streaming parameter prior to expiration of the restarted timer; and transmit an additional indication of a third video streaming parameter based at least in part on the second video quality failing to satisfy the second video streaming parameter.
However, based on the above discussions for claims 11-14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an apparatus that merely repeats the method discussed in this paragraph above using a second timer, second video streaming parameter, second video quality and third video streaming parameter based at least in part on the second video quality failing to satisfy the second video streaming parameter, since it has been held (see MPEP Section 2144.04, subsection VI.B) that “mere duplication of parts that does not produce new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art and thus has no patentable significance” - In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The motivation to do so would be to have a UE that can initiate a voice communication link, begin receiving a video stream while establishing the voice communication link and repeatedly start a timer to make measurements of bandwidth and RSRP or SINR every 1ms time intervals during which a network is establishing the voice communication link, so that the UE can determine average video quality of the video stream and make requests to the network to lower video quality when the UE determines the average video quality metrics (i.e. bandwidth and RSRP or SINR) over any of the 1ms time intervals are below certain thresholds to avoid video stalling.
Regarding claim 15, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the apparatus of claim 11.
Kokkinen in view of Sridhar fail to disclose wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: receive the one-way video transmissions associated with the video service according to a second video quality based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter, the second video quality satisfying the second video streaming parameter.
Based on the above discussions for claims 11 and 15, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an apparatus merely repeat the method discussed in this paragraph above using a second video streaming parameter and second video quality, since it has been held (see MPEP Section 2144.04, subsection VI.B) that “mere duplication of parts that does not produce new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art and thus has no patentable significance” - In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The motivation to do so would be to have a UE that can begin receiving a video stream at a first requested video quality, make measurements of bandwidth and RSRP or SINR of the video stream received at the first video quality level, determine that the measured bandwidth and RSRP or SINR are below certain thresholds and in response request a second video quality level lower than the first quality level and then receive the video stream at the lower second requested video level to avoid video stalling.
Regarding claim 16, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the apparatus of claim 11.
Kokkinen in view of Sridhar fail to disclose wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: receive the one-way video transmissions associated with the video service according to a second video quality based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter; determine the second video quality fails to satisfy the second video streaming parameter; and transmit an additional indication of a third video streaming parameter based at least in part on determining the second video quality fails to satisfy the second video streaming parameter.
However, based on the above discussions for claims 11 and 16, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an apparatus merely repeat the method discussed in this paragraph above using a second video quality and second & third video streaming parameters, since it has been held (see MPEP Section 2144.04, subsection VI.B) that “mere duplication of parts that does not produce new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art and thus has no patentable significance” - In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The motivation to do so would be to have a UE that repeatedly receives video stream segments transmitted by a base station, determines average video quality of each video stream segment and make requests to the network to lower video quality when the UE determines the average video quality metrics (i.e. bandwidth and RSRP or SINR) are below certain thresholds during any one of the video stream segments to avoid video stalling.
Regarding claim 19, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the apparatus of claim 11.
Kokkinen fails to disclose wherein the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a threshold quality of service, a bandwidth, a bit rate, a video resolution, or a combination thereof.
However, Sridhar teaches wherein the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a threshold quality of service, a bandwidth, a bit rate, a video resolution, or a combination thereof ([0008] discloses an apparatus that can transmit a request for a first segment of video content to be encoded at a first quality level (i.e. quality of service parameter that represents a first quality of service threshold). [0025] discloses that the choice of quality level requested may be associated with an encoded bitrate that requires a bandwidth less than an available bandwidth.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 11, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar, wherein the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a threshold quality of service, a bandwidth, a bit rate, a video resolution, or a combination thereof, as taught by Sridhar. The motivation to do so would be to have a UE that can provide a request for a quality level associated with an encoded bit rate to be transmitted by a base station that requires lower channel bandwidth than the available channel bandwidth so that the UEs video buffer does not overflow and cause stalling.
Regarding claim 20, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the apparatus of claim 11.
Kokkinen discloses wherein the video service is a customized alerting tone service ([0081] discloses a feedback message (i.e. alerting message) to a calling party can be a video. [0022] discloses that output provided to the calling party can be customized for special occasion such as a “Happy Birthday” ringback tone.).
Regarding claim 21, Kokkinen discloses an apparatus for wireless communications at a first user equipment (UE) comprised to: transmit a request to a network entity to establish a voice communication session with a second UE (Fig 3, Fig 4 & [0055]-[0056] disclose a first Party A 396 transmitting a request via BSS 315 to MSC 335 to attempt to place a call to second wired subscriber 303.);
configure a video service for streaming one-way video transmissions from the network entity to the first UE for display at the first UE during establishment of the voice communication session with the second UE based at least in part on a subscription of the second UE to the video service (Fig 4 & [0057] disclose an Intelligent Network (IN) providing information (i.e. configuring) to SRP375 for a one-way transmission from SRP 375 or network entity MSC 335 to first Party A 396 that can be a message, announcement or other output concurrently with MSC 335 attempting to establish the setup with second wired subscriber 303. [0019] & [0081] disclose that the message, announcement or other output may be visual output or video. [0018] discloses that the message, announcement or outer output (e.g. video) may be a based on a subscriber of a service (e.g. a subscription of second wired subscriber to a video service that provides a video stream to calling first Party A 396 while a voice call is being established).);
receive one-way video transmissions associated with the video service during the establishment of the voice communication session with the second UE, the one-way video transmissions having a first video quality at the first UE (Fig 4 & [0057] disclose first Party A 396 receiving one-way transmission from SRP 375 to first Party A 396 of a message, announcement or other output concurrently with MSC 335 attempting to establish the setup with second wired subscriber 303. [0019] & [0081] disclose that the message, announcement or other output may be visual output or video.); and
Kokkinen fails to disclose an apparatus at a UE comprising: a means for performing the functions of this claim that are disclosed by Kokkinen above and means for transmitting an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with the video service; means for wherein the one-way video transmissions having a first video quality at the first UE; means for starting a timer corresponding to the video service; and means for transmitting an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based at least in part on the first video quality at the first UE failing to satisfy a threshold video quality at the first UE for the video service for a duration of the timer.
However, Sridhar teaches an apparatus at a UE comprising means for performing the functions of this claim that are disclosed by Kokkinen above (Fig 7 & [0042] disclose a UE with a processor 750. Fig 7 & [0042] disclose memory 755 coupled to processor 750 to implement an operating system. Fig 7 & [0042] disclose processor 750 may execute instructions stored in memory 755 to provide a means for the apparatus to perform the functions of this claim.) and means for transmitting an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with the video service ([0008] discloses an apparatus that can transmit a request for a first segment of video content to be encoded at a first quality level (i.e. an indication of a first video streaming parameter of a first quality level). [0005] discloses that a client may first request the lowest quality level when the client has not yet received any video segments.);
means for wherein the one-way video transmissions having a first video quality at the first UE (Fig 6 & [0032] disclose a client measuring an RSRP or SINR based on signals received from a base station (e.g. first video quality based on the one-way video transmission).);
means for starting a timer corresponding to the video service ([0033] discloses that a client may determine that the cell is congested if a measured bandwidth is less than a bandwidth required to transmit the video at the requested quality level. Fig 6 & [0032] disclose that measured bandwidth can be based on averaging a number of video content bits received over a number of PRBs, averaged over a time interval ranging from 1 ms to 100 ms (i.e. UE would start a 1ms to 100ms timer to measure and calculate the measured bandwidth of the video service). Note that in the case where the timer is 1 ms, this may correspond to no averaging (i.e. a single PRB may be only 1 ms in duration). Thus, Sridhar teaches of starting a 1 ms timer corresponding to measuring bandwidth for a video service.); and
means for transmitting an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying a threshold for a duration of the timer (Fig 6 & [0033]-[0036] disclose the client may use the RSRP or SINR measurements made over a 1 ms duration (i.e. a single PRB) to transmit a request for different selected quality levels (e.g. transmit a second video streaming parameter of a second quality level based on the first video quality measured by the client). The request for different selected quality levels may be based on the RSRP or SINR, measured over the 1 ms time duration) being compared to a threshold where if the RSRP or SINR is above the threshold it is determined that the client is near the center of a cell (i.e. if the RSRP or SINR fails to satisfy the threshold then the client determines it is not near the center of the cell). Clients that are not near the center of the cell, but also not in handover, may request a lower quality level if the client determines the cell may be congested. The client may determine that the cell is congested if a measured bandwidth for the duration of the 1 ms timer is less than a bandwidth required to transmit the video at the requested quality level (i.e. compare measured bandwidth to a required bandwidth threshold). Fig 6 & [0033] discloses that information measured at blocks 605 (RSRP or SINR), 610 (Bandwidth) and 615 (Mobility) may all be used to select quality levels for subsequent video content, and thus a broadest reasonable interpretation would be that all measurements (i.e. RSRP or SINR, bandwidth and mobility measurements) would be taken over the same interval by starting a 1ms to 100 ms timer and complete making measurements prior to the expiration of the timer.). Thus disclosed is a client transmitting to a cell an indication of a lower video quality level (i.e. a second video streaming parameter) associated with video service based in part on the cell being congested (measured bandwidth over 1 ms duration being below a required bandwidth threshold) and in part on an RSRP or SINR measurement over a 1 ms duration not satisfying a threshold for being located near a cell to provide a desired video quality at the client for the video service.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an apparatus at a first UE, where the first UE has means for receiving a video service, wherein the video service is configured for streaming one-way video, as disclosed by Kokkinen, and means for transmitting an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with the video service; wherein the one-way video transmissions have a first video quality at the first UE; means for starting a timer corresponding to the video service; and means for transmitting an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying a threshold for a duration of the timer, as taught by Sridhar. The motivation to do so would be to have an apparatus at a first UE, where the UE can request, to a cell, a video content at a first video quality level, receive a video stream based on the first requested video level and start a 1 ms timer to measure the quality of the video stream by determining congestion in the cell for the duration of the 1 ms timer and comparing RSRP or SINR measured over the 1 ms duration to a threshold and subsequently send a second request to the cell for a lower video quality if the RSRP or SINR measurements are below the threshold and there is determined to be congestion in the cell, to avoid video stalling.
Kokkinen fails to disclose but Singh further teaches wherein first video quality not satisfying a threshold may be substituted by a packet drop rate of the first video quality satisfying a threshold (Fig 3 & [0060]-[0061] disclose that an encoding mode may be determined by an encoding configuration component 380 based, at least in part, on network performance information 395 at a receiving client device 325. [0057] & [0062] discloses that an initial sending configuration 385 may be assigned to a media component 340 independent of network performance information, and based on network performance information 390 indicating a packet loss rate above a predefined packet loss threshold, a encoding configuration component 380 may assign an all-intra-coded mode (i.e. a second video streaming parameter) to media component 340. Thus, Singh discloses wherein a packet loss rate being above a threshold is used in place of a video quality not satisfying a threshold as a basis for indicating a second video streaming parameter.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an apparatus at a first UE, where a first UE has means for receiving a video service, wherein the video service is configured for streaming one-way video, means for transmitting an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with a video service, wherein the one-way video transmissions have a first video quality at the first UE; means for starting a timer corresponding to the video service; and transmitting an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying a threshold for a duration of the timer, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar, wherein first video quality not satisfying a threshold may be substituted by a packet drop rate of the first video quality satisfying a threshold, as further taught by Singh. The motivation to do so would be to have an apparatus at a first UE, where the UE can request, to a cell, a video content at a first video quality level, receive a video stream based on the first requested video level and start a 1 ms timer to measure the quality of the video stream by comparing a packet drop rate measured over the 1 ms duration to a threshold and subsequently send a second request to the cell for a lower video quality if the packet drop rate exceeds the threshold, to avoid video stalling.
Regarding claim 23, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the apparatus of claim 21.
Kokkinen discloses further comprising: means for a time period based at least in part on transmitting the request to establish the voice communication session ([0003] discloses a first party initiating the establishment of a communication link (e.g. voice communication session) and a time period representing a delay between initiating the establishment of the communication link and establishing the communication link. [0007] discloses determination of establishment of the communication link based on the time a destination party answers a communication request.).
Kokkinen fails to disclose means for starting a timer; and means for determining the first video quality does not satisfy the threshold prior to expiration of the timer, wherein transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter is based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying the threshold prior to expiration of the timer.
However, Sridhar teaches means for starting a timer ([0033] discloses that a client may determine that the cell is congested if a measured bandwidth is less than a bandwidth required to transmit the video at the requested quality level. Fig 6 & [0032] disclose that measured bandwidth can be based on averaging a number of video content bits received over a number of PRBs, averaged over a time interval ranging from 1 ms to 100 ms (i.e. UE would start a 1ms to 100ms timer to measure and calculate the measured bandwidth of the video service). Note that in the case where the timer is 1 ms, this may correspond to no averaging (i.e. a single PRB may be only 1 ms in duration). Broadest reasonable interpretation would be that the RSRP or SINR measurements would also be taken by starting a timer for the same 1ms to 100ms timer interval. Note that it would be obvious to have the timer taught by Sridhar start at the beginning of the time period where the first party initiates a communication link as disclosed by Kokkinen.); and
means for determining the first video quality does not satisfy the threshold prior to expiration of the timer, wherein transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter is based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying the threshold prior to expiration of the timer (Fig 6 & [0033]-[0036] a request for different selected quality levels may be based on the RSRP or SINR being compared to a threshold where if the RSRP or SINR is above the threshold it is determined that the client is near the center of a cell (i.e. if the RSRP or SINR fails to satisfy the threshold then the client determines it is not near the center of the cell). Clients that are not near the center of the cell, but also not in handover, may request a lower quality level if the client determines the cell may be congested. The client may determine that the cell is congested if a measured bandwidth is less than a bandwidth required to transmit the video at the requested quality level (i.e. compare measured bandwidth to a required bandwidth threshold). Fig 6 & [0032] disclose that measured bandwidth can be based on averaging a number of video content bits received over a number of PRBs, averaged over a time interval ranging from 1 ms to 100 ms (i.e. UE would start a 1 ms to 100 ms timer and complete making measurements prior to the expiration of the timer). Note that in the case where the timer is 1 ms, this may correspond to no averaging (i.e. a single PRB may be only 1 ms in duration). Fig 6 & [0033] discloses that information measured at blocks 605 (RSRP or SINR), 610 (Bandwidth) and 615 (Mobility) may all be used to select quality levels for subsequent video content, and thus a broadest reasonable interpretation would be that all measurements (i.e. RSRP or SINR, bandwidth and mobility measurements) would be taken over the same interval by starting a 1ms to 100 ms timer and complete making measurements prior to the expiration of the timer.). Thus disclosed is determining a first video quality based on measured bandwidth/congestion and RSRP or SINR that does not satisfy thresholds for video quality and completing making measurements prior to a 1ms to 100ms timer expiring.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the apparatus of claim 21 further comprising, means for a time period based on transmitting a request to establish a voice communication session, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar, and further comprising: means for starting a timer; and means for determining the first video quality does not satisfy the threshold prior to expiration of the timer, wherein transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter is based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying the threshold prior to expiration of the timer, as taught by Sridhar. The motivation to do so would be to have an apparatus for a UE, where the UE has means to initiate a voice communication link, begin receiving a video stream while establishing the voice communication link and start a 1ms timer to make measurements of bandwidth and RSRP or SINR over 1ms time intervals during which a network is establishing the voice communication link, so that the UE can determine average video quality of the video stream and make requests to the network, prior to expiration of the 1 ms timer, to lower video quality when the UE determines the average video quality metrics (i.e. bandwidth and RSRP or SINR) are below certain thresholds to avoid video stalling.
Kokkinen fails to disclose but Singh further teaches wherein the first video quality does not satisfy, or the first video quality not satisfying, the threshold may be substituted by the packet drop rate satisfies, or the packet drop rate satisfying, the threshold (Fig 3 & [0060]-[0061] disclose that an encoding mode may be determined by an encoding configuration component 380 based, at least in part, on network performance information 395 at a receiving client device 325. [0057] & [0062] discloses that an initial sending configuration 385 may be assigned to a media component 340 independent of network performance information, and based on network performance information 390 indicating a packet loss rate above a predefined packet loss threshold, a encoding configuration component 380 may assign an all-intra-coded mode (i.e. a second video streaming parameter) to media component 340. Thus, Singh discloses wherein a packet loss rate being above a threshold is used in place of a video quality not satisfying a threshold to as a basis for indicating a second video streaming parameter.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the apparatus of claim 21 further comprising: means for a time period based on transmitting a request to establish a voice communication session; means for starting a timer; and means for determining the first video quality does not satisfy the threshold prior to expiration of the timer, wherein transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter is based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying the threshold prior to expiration of the timer, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar, wherein the first video quality does not satisfy, or the first video quality not satisfying, the threshold may be substituted by the packet drop rate satisfies, or the packet drop rate satisfying, the threshold, as further taught by Singh. The motivation to do so would be to have an apparatus at a UE, where the UE has means to initiate a voice communication link, begin receiving a video stream while establishing the voice communication link and start a 1ms timer to make packet drop rate measurements over 1ms time intervals during which a network is establishing the voice communication link, so that the UE can determine average video quality of the video stream based on the packet drop rate measurements and make requests to the network, prior to expiration of the 1 ms timer, to lower video quality when the UE determines the packet drop rate measurements exceed thresholds, to avoid video stalling.
Regarding claim 24, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the apparatus of claim 23,
Kokkinen in view of Sridhar fail to disclose further comprising: means for restarting the timer based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter prior to expiration of the timer; means for receiving the one-way video transmissions associated with the video service according to a second video quality; means for determining the second video quality fails to satisfy the second video streaming parameter prior to expiration of the restarted timer; and means for transmitting an additional indication of a third video streaming parameter based at least in part on the second video quality failing to satisfy the second video streaming parameter.
However, based on the above discussions for claims 23 & 24, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar disclose comprising a means for: starting a timer based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the first video streaming parameter prior to expiration of the timer; receiving the one-way video transmissions associated with the video service according to a first video quality; determining the first video quality fails to satisfy the first video streaming parameter prior to expiration of the started timer; and transmitting an indication of a second video streaming parameter based at least in part on the first video quality failing to satisfy the second video streaming parameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an apparatus that merely repeats the method discussed in this paragraph above using a second timer, second video streaming parameter, second video quality and third video streaming parameter based at least in part on the second video quality failing to satisfy the second video streaming parameter, since it has been held (see MPEP Section 2144.04, subsection VI.B) that “mere duplication of parts that does not produce new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art and thus has no patentable significance” - In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The motivation to do so would be to have a UE that can initiate a voice communication link, begin receiving a video stream while establishing the voice communication link and repeatedly start a timer to make measurements of bandwidth and RSRP or SINR every 1ms to 100ms time intervals during which a network is establishing the voice communication link, so that the UE can determine average video quality of the video stream and make requests to the network to lower video quality when the UE determines the average video quality metrics (i.e. bandwidth and RSRP or SINR) over any of the 1ms to 100ms time intervals are below certain thresholds to avoid video stalling.
Regarding claim 25, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar in view of Singh disclose the apparatus of claim 21.
Kokkinen in view of Sridhar fail to disclose further comprising: means for receiving the one-way video transmissions associated with the video service according to a second video quality based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter, the second video quality satisfying the second video streaming parameter.
However, based on the above discussions for claims 21 & 25, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar disclose the apparatus of claim 21 further comprising: means for receiving the one-way video transmissions associated with the video service according to a first video quality based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the first video streaming parameter, the first video quality satisfying the first video streaming parameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an apparatus merely repeat the method discussed in this paragraph above using a second video streaming parameter and second video quality, since it has been held (see MPEP Section 2144.04, subsection VI.B) that “mere duplication of parts that does not produce new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art and thus has no patentable significance” - In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The motivation to do so would be to have a UE that can begin receiving a video stream at a first requested video quality, make measurements of bandwidth and RSRP or SINR of the video stream received at the first video quality level, determine that the measured bandwidth and RSRP or SINR are below certain thresholds and in response request a second video quality level lower than the first quality level and then receive the video stream at the lower second requested video level to avoid video stalling.
Regarding claim 26, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the apparatus of claim 21,
Kokkinen in view of Sridhar fail to disclose further comprising: means for receiving the one-way video transmissions associated with the video service according to a second video quality based at least in part on transmitting the indication of the second video streaming parameter; means for determining the second video quality fails to satisfy the second video streaming parameter; and means for transmitting an additional indication of a third video streaming parameter based at least in part on determining the second video quality fails to satisfy the second video streaming parameter.
However, based on the above discussions for claims 21 and 26, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an apparatus merely repeat the method discussed in this paragraph above using a second video quality and second & third video streaming parameters, since it has been held (see MPEP Section 2144.04, subsection VI.B) that “mere duplication of parts that does not produce new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art and thus has no patentable significance” - In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The motivation to do so would be to have a UE that repeatedly receives video stream segments transmitted by a base station, determines average video quality of each video stream segment and make requests to the network to lower video quality when the UE determines the average video quality metrics (i.e. bandwidth and RSRP or SINR) are below certain thresholds during any one of the video stream segments to avoid video stalling.
Regarding claim 29, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the apparatus of claim 21.
Kokkinen fails to disclose wherein: the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a threshold quality of service, a bandwidth, a bit rate, a video resolution, or a combination thereof.
However, Sridhar teaches wherein the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a threshold quality of service, a bandwidth, a bit rate, a video resolution, or a combination thereof ([0008] discloses an apparatus that can transmit a request for a first segment of video content to be encoded at a first quality level (i.e. quality of service parameter that represents a first quality of service threshold). [0025] discloses that the choice of quality level requested may be associated with an encoded bitrate that requires a bandwidth less than an available bandwidth.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 21, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar, wherein the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a threshold quality of service, a bandwidth, a bit rate, a video resolution, or a combination thereof, as taught by Sridhar. The motivation to do so would be to have a UE that can provide a request for a quality level associated with an encoded bit rate to be transmitted by a base station that requires lower channel bandwidth than the available channel bandwidth so that the UEs video buffer does not overflow and cause stalling.
Regarding claim 30, Kokkinen discloses a first user equipment (UE) caused to: transmit a request to a network entity to establish a voice communication session with a second UE (Fig 3, Fig 4 & [0055]-[0056] disclose a first Party A 396 transmitting a request via BSS 315 to MSC 335 to attempt to place a call to second wired subscriber 303.);
configure a video service for streaming one-way video transmissions from the network entity to the first UE for display at the first UE during establishment of the voice communication session with the second UE based at least in part on a subscription of the second UE to the video service (Fig 4 & [0057] disclose an Intelligent Network (IN) providing information (i.e. configuring) to SRP375 for a one-way transmission from SRP 375 or network entity MSC 335 to first Party A 396 that can be a message, announcement or other output concurrently with MSC 335 attempting to establish the setup with second wired subscriber 303. [0019] & [0081] disclose that the message, announcement or other output may be visual output or video. [0018] discloses that the message, announcement or outer output (e.g. video) may be a based on a subscriber of a service (e.g. a subscription of second wired subscriber to a video service that provides a video stream to calling first Party A 396 while a voice call is being established).);
receive one-way video transmissions associated with the video service during the establishment of the voice communication session with the second UE, the one-way video transmissions having a first video quality at the first UE (Fig 4 & [0057] disclose first Party A 396 receiving one-way transmission from SRP 375 to first Party A 396 of a message, announcement or other output concurrently with MSC 335 attempting to establish the setup with second wired subscriber 303. [0019] & [0081] disclose that the message, announcement or other output may be visual output or video.); and
Kokkinen fails to disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications at the first user equipment (UE), the code comprising instructions executable by a processor to perform the functions in this claim that are disclosed by Kokkinen above and: transmit an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with the video service; wherein the one-way video transmissions have a first video quality at the first UE; start a timer corresponding to the video service; and transmit an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based at least in part on the first video quality at the first UE failing to satisfy a threshold video quality at the first UE for the video service for a duration of the timer.
However, Sridhar teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications at the first user equipment (UE), the code comprising instructions executable by a processor to perform the functions in this claim that are disclosed by Kokkinen above ([0045] discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions (i.e. storing code) that, when executed by one or more processors, perform the functions of the UE.) and to further cause the first UE to:
transmit an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with the video service ([0008] discloses an apparatus that can transmit a request for a first segment of video content to be encoded at a first quality level (i.e. an indication of a first video streaming parameter of a first quality level). [0005] discloses that a client may first request the lowest quality level when the client has not yet received any video segments.);
wherein the one-way video transmissions have a first video quality at the first UE (Fig 6 & [0032] disclose a client measuring an RSRP or SINR based on signals received from a base station (e.g. first video quality based on the one-way video transmission).);
start a timer corresponding to the video service ([0033] discloses that a client may determine that the cell is congested if a measured bandwidth is less than a bandwidth required to transmit the video at the requested quality level. Fig 6 & [0032] disclose that measured bandwidth can be based on averaging a number of video content bits received over a number of PRBs, averaged over a time interval ranging from 1 ms to 100 ms (i.e. UE would start a 1ms to 100ms timer to measure and calculate the measured bandwidth of the video service). Note that in the case where the timer is 1 ms, this may correspond to no averaging (i.e. a single PRB may be only 1 ms in duration). Thus, Sridhar teaches of starting a 1 ms timer corresponding to measuring bandwidth for a video service.); and
transmit an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying a threshold for a duration of the timer (Fig 6 & [0033]-[0036] disclose the client may use the RSRP or SINR measurements made over a 1 ms duration (i.e. a single PRB) to transmit a request for different selected quality levels (e.g. transmit a second video streaming parameter of a second quality level based on the first video quality measured by the client). The request for different selected quality levels may be based on the RSRP or SINR, measured over the 1 ms time duration) being compared to a threshold where if the RSRP or SINR is above the threshold it is determined that the client is near the center of a cell (i.e. if the RSRP or SINR fails to satisfy the threshold then the client determines it is not near the center of the cell). Clients that are not near the center of the cell, but also not in handover, may request a lower quality level if the client determines the cell may be congested. The client may determine that the cell is congested if a measured bandwidth for the duration of the 1 ms timer is less than a bandwidth required to transmit the video at the requested quality level (i.e. compare measured bandwidth to a required bandwidth threshold). Fig 6 & [0033] discloses that information measured at blocks 605 (RSRP or SINR), 610 (Bandwidth) and 615 (Mobility) may all be used to select quality levels for subsequent video content, and thus a broadest reasonable interpretation would be that all measurements (i.e. RSRP or SINR, bandwidth and mobility measurements) would be taken over the same interval by starting a 1ms to 100 ms timer and complete making measurements prior to the expiration of the timer.). Thus disclosed is a client transmitting to a cell an indication of a lower video quality level (i.e. a second video streaming parameter) associated with video service based in part on the cell being congested (measured bandwidth over 1 ms duration being below a required bandwidth threshold) and in part on an RSRP or SINR measurement over a 1 ms duration not satisfying a threshold for being located near a cell to provide a desired video quality at the client for the video service.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first UE caused to: transmit a request to a network entity to establish a voice communication session with a second UE; configure a video service, for streaming one-way video transmissions from the network entity to the first UE for display at the first UE during establishment of the voice communication session with the second UE based at least in part on a subscription of the second UE to the video service; and receive one-way video transmissions associated with the video service during the establishment of the voice communication session with the second UE, as disclosed by Kokkinen, wherein the functions disclosed by Kokkinen are performed by the first UE comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications at a first user equipment (UE), the code comprising instructions executable by a processor which further cause the first UE to: transmit an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with the video service; wherein the one-way video transmissions have a first video quality; start a timer corresponding to the video service; and transmit an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying a threshold for a duration of the timer, as taught by Sridhar. The motivation to do so would be to have a UE comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications at a first user equipment (UE), the code comprising instructions executable by a processor, so that when the instructions are executed by the processor, the UE performs a request, to a cell, for video content at a first video quality level, receives a video stream based on the first requested video level request and starts a 1 ms timer to measure the quality of the video stream by determining congestion in the cell for the duration of the 1 ms timer and compare RSRP or SINR measured over the 1 ms timer duration to a threshold and subsequently sends a second request to the cell for a lower video quality if the RSRP or SINR measurements are below the threshold and there is determined to be congestion in the cell, to avoid video stalling.
Kokkinen fails to disclose but Singh further teaches wherein first video quality not satisfying a threshold may be substituted by a packet drop rate of the first video quality satisfying a threshold (Fig 3 & [0060]-[0061] disclose that an encoding mode may be determined by an encoding configuration component 380 based, at least in part, on network performance information 395 at a receiving client device 325. [0057] & [0062] discloses that an initial sending configuration 385 may be assigned to a media component 340 independent of network performance information, and based on network performance information 390 indicating a packet loss rate above a predefined packet loss threshold, a encoding configuration component 380 may assign an all-intra-coded mode (i.e. a second video streaming parameter) to media component 340. Thus, Singh discloses wherein a packet loss rate being above a threshold is used in place of a video quality not satisfying a threshold as a basis for indicating a second video streaming parameter.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications at the first user equipment (UE), the code comprising instructions executable by a processor to: transmit a request to a network entity to establish a voice communication session with a second UE; configure a video service, for streaming one-way video transmissions from the network entity to the first UE for display at the first UE during establishment of the voice communication session with the second UE based at least in part on a subscription of the second UE to the video service; and receive one-way video transmissions associated with the video service during the establishment of the voice communication session with the second UE; transmit an indication to the network entity of a first video streaming parameter associated with the video service, wherein the one-way video transmissions have a first video quality; start a timer corresponding to the video service; and transmit an indication of a second video streaming parameter associated with the video service based at least in part on the first video quality not satisfying a threshold for a duration of the timer, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar, wherein first video quality not satisfying a threshold may be substituted by a packet drop rate of the first video quality satisfying a threshold, as further taught by Singh. The motivation to do so would be to have a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications at the first user equipment (UE), the code comprising instructions executable by a processor to request, to a cell, a video content at a first video quality level, receive a video stream based on the first requested video level and start a 1 ms timer to measure the quality of the video stream by comparing a packet drop rate measured over the 1 ms duration to a threshold and subsequently send a second request to the cell for a lower video quality if the packet drop rate exceeds the threshold, to avoid video stalling.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokkinen et al. (US 2005/0105706)(herein after “Kokkinen”) in view of Sridhar et al. (US 2016/0105671)(herein after “Sridhar”) and Singh et al. (US 2019/0068678)(herein after “Singh”), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mani et al. (US 2017/0063702)(herein after “Mani”).
Regarding claim 7, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the method of claim 1.
Kokkinen fails to disclose further comprising: determining that the second video streaming parameter comprises a lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE; and transmitting, to the network entity, an indication based at least in part on the second video streaming parameter comprising the lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE.
However, Sridhar teaches determining that the second video streaming parameter comprises a lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE ([0005] discloses a UE determining to request a lowest quality level for a video content (i.e. lowest configured video streaming parameter).); and
transmitting, to the network entity, an indication at least in part on the second video streaming parameter comprising the lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE ([0005] discloses a UE requesting a lowest quality level for a video content (i.e. transmitting an indication of lowest configured video streaming parameter).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 1, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh, further comprising: determining that the second video streaming parameter comprises a lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE; and transmitting, to the network entity, an indication based at least in part on the second video streaming parameter comprising the lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE the claimed invention to have the method of claim 1, as taught by Sridhar. The motivation to do so would be to have a method where a UE determines that not enough video segments have been received to make statistically significant measurements to determine an accurate video quality and thus requests a lowest video quality to reduce the likelihood of buffer overflow and stalling of the video.
Kokkinen fails to disclose but Mani further teaches wherein the indication is to disable the video service ([0017] discloses transmission bitrate of a video stream being greater than a network bandwidth being an indication to disable the video stream.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the second video streaming parameter comprises a lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE; and transmitting, to the network entity, an indication based at least in part on the second video streaming parameter comprising the lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh, wherein the indication is to disable the video service, as further taught by Mani. The motivation to do so would be to have a method where a UE determines that not enough video segments have been received for a video service to make statistically significant measurements to determine an accurate video quality, and thus requests a lowest video quality, but even while receiving the lowest video quality experiences buffer overflow and thus indicates to disable the video service.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokkinen et al. (US 2005/0105706)(herein after “Kokkinen”) in view of Sridhar et al. (US 2016/0105671)(herein after “Sridhar”) and Singh et al. (US 2019/0068678)(herein after “Singh”), as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Mani et al. (US 2017/0063702)(herein after “Mani”).
Regarding claim 17, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the apparatus of claim 11.
Kokkinen fails to disclose wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: determine that the second video streaming parameter comprises a lowest configured video streaming threshold for the first UE; and transmit, to the network entity, an indication based at least in part on the second video streaming parameter comprising the lowest configured video streaming threshold for the first UE.
However, Sridhar teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: determine that the second video streaming parameter comprises a lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE ([0005] discloses a UE determining to request a lowest quality level for a video content (i.e. lowest configured video streaming parameter).); and transmit, to the network entity, an indication based at least in part on the second video streaming parameter comprising the lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE ([0005] discloses a UE requesting a lowest quality level for a video content (i.e. transmitting an indication of lowest configured video streaming parameter).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the apparatus of claim 11, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: determine that the second video streaming parameter comprises a lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE; and transmit, to the network entity, an indication based at least in part on the second video streaming parameter comprising the lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE, as taught by Sridhar. The motivation to do so would be to have a UE capable of determining that not enough video segments have been received to make statistically significant measurements to determine an accurate video quality and thus requesting a lowest video quality to reduce the likelihood of buffer overflow and stalling of the video.
Kokkinen fails to disclose but Mani further teaches wherein the indication is to disable the video service ([0017] discloses transmission bitrate of a video stream being greater than a network bandwidth being an indication to disable the video stream.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: determine that the second video streaming parameter comprises a lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE; and transmit, to the network entity, an indication based at least in part on the second video streaming parameter comprising the lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh, wherein the indication is to disable the video service, as further taught by Mani. The motivation to do so would be to have a UE capable of determining that not enough video segments have been received for a video service to make statistically significant measurements to determine an accurate video quality, and thus requesting a lowest video quality, but even while receiving the lowest video quality experiences buffer overflow and thus indicates to disable the video service.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokkinen et al. (US 2005/0105706)(herein after “Kokkinen”) in view of Sridhar et al. (US 2016/0105671)(herein after “Sridhar”) and Singh et al. (US 2019/0068678)(herein after “Singh”), as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Mani et al. (US 2017/0063702)(herein after “Mani”).
Regarding claim 27, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh discloses the apparatus of claim 21,
Kokkinen fails to disclose further comprising: means for determining that the second video streaming parameter comprises a lowest configured video streaming threshold for the first UE; and means for transmitting, to the network entity, an indication based at least in part on the second video streaming parameter comprising the lowest configured video streaming threshold for the first UE.
However, Sridhar teaches further comprising: means for determining that the second video streaming parameter comprises a lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE ([0005] discloses a UE determining to request a lowest quality level for a video content (i.e. lowest configured video streaming parameter).); and transmitting, to the network entity, an indication based at least in part on the second video streaming parameter comprising the lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE ([0005] discloses a UE requesting a lowest quality level for a video content (i.e. transmitting an indication of lowest configured video streaming parameter).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the apparatus of claim 21, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh, further comprising: means for determining that the second video streaming parameter comprises a lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE; and means for transmitting, to the network entity, an indication based at least in part on the second video streaming parameter comprising the lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE, as taught by Sridhar. The motivation to do so would be to have a UE capable of determining that not enough video segments have been received to make statistically significant measurements to determine an accurate video quality and thus requesting a lowest video quality to reduce the likelihood of buffer overflow and stalling of the video.
Kokkinen fails to disclose but Mani further teaches wherein the indication is to disable the video service ([0017] discloses transmission bitrate of a video stream being greater than a network bandwidth being an indication to disable the video stream.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the apparatus of claim 21, further comprising: means for determining that the second video streaming parameter comprises a lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE; and means for transmitting, to the network entity, an indication at least in part on the second video streaming parameter comprising the lowest configured video streaming parameter for the first UE, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and SIngh, wherein the indication is to disable the video service, as further taught by Mani. The motivation to do so would be to have a UE capable of determining that not enough video segments have been received for a video service to make statistically significant measurements to determine an accurate video quality, and thus requesting a lowest video quality, but even while receiving the lowest video quality experiences buffer overflow and thus indicates to disable the video service.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokkinen et al. (US 2005/0105706)(herein after “Kokkinen”) in view of Sridhar et al. (US 2016/0105671)(herein after “Sridhar”) and Singh et al. (US 2019/0068678)(herein after “Singh”), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sodagar et al. (US 2021/0306229)(herein after “Sodagar”).
Regarding claim 8, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the method of claim 1.
Kokkinen fails to disclose wherein the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a supported codec and a profile level corresponding to a bitrate supported by the first UE associated with receiving the one-way video transmissions.
However, Sodagar further teaches wherein the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a supported codec and a profile level corresponding to a bitrate supported by the first UE associated with receiving the one-way video transmissions ([0081] discloses media capabilities (i.e. video streaming parameters) including supported codecs, profile/levels and bitrates.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of claim 1, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh, wherein the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a supported codec and a profile level corresponding to a bitrate supported by the first UE associated with receiving the one-way video transmissions, as further taught by Sodagar. The motivation to do so would be to have a method where a UE can measure video quality of a video service and request a lower bitrate of a codec supported by both the UE and the network than a current codec bitrate being transmitted by the network, when the UE determines video quality metrics are below certain thresholds to reduce the likelihood of buffer overflow and stalling of the video service.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokkinen et al. (US 2005/0105706)(herein after “Kokkinen”) in view of Sridhar et al. (US 2016/0105671)(herein after “Sridhar”) and Singh et al. (US 2019/0068678)(herein after “Singh”), as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Sodagar et al. (US 2021/0306229)(herein after “Sodagar”).
Regarding claim 18, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh disclose the apparatus of claim 11.
Kokkinen fails to disclose wherein the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a supported codec and a profile level corresponding to a bitrate supported by the first UE associated with receiving the one-way video transmissions.
However, Sodagar further teaches wherein the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a supported codec and a profile level corresponding to a bitrate supported by the first UE associated with receiving the one-way video transmissions ([0081] discloses media capabilities (i.e. video streaming parameters) including supported codecs, profile/levels and bitrates.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the apparatus of claim 11, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh, wherein the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a supported codec and a profile level corresponding to a bitrate supported by the first UE associated with receiving the one-way video transmissions, as further taught by Sodagar. The motivation to do so would be to have a UE that can measure video quality of a video service and request a lower bitrate of a codec supported by both the UE and the network than a current codec bitrate being transmitted by the network, when the UE determines video quality metrics are below certain thresholds to reduce the likelihood of buffer overflow and stalling of the video service.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokkinen et al. (US 2005/0105706)(herein after “Kokkinen”) in view of Sridhar et al. (US 2016/0105671)(herein after “Sridhar”) and Singh et al. (US 2019/0068678)(herein after “Singh”), as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Sodagar et al. (US 2021/0306229)(herein after “Sodagar”).
Regarding claim 28, Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and SIngh disclose the apparatus of claim 21.
Kokkinen fails to disclose wherein: the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a supported codec and a profile level corresponding to a bitrate supported by the first UE associated with receiving the one-way video transmissions.
However, Sodagar further teaches wherein the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a supported codec and a profile level corresponding to a bitrate supported by the first UE associated with receiving the one-way video transmissions ([0081] discloses media capabilities (i.e. video streaming parameters) including supported codecs, profile/levels and bitrates.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the apparatus of claim 21, as disclosed by Kokkinen in view of Sridhar and Singh, wherein the first video streaming parameter, the second video streaming parameter, or both comprise a supported codec and a profile level corresponding to a bitrate supported by the first UE associated with receiving the one-way video transmissions, as further taught by Sodagar. The motivation to do so would be to have a UE that can measure video quality of a video service and request a lower bitrate of a codec supported by both the UE and the network than a current codec bitrate being transmitted by the network, when the UE determines video quality metrics are below certain thresholds to reduce the likelihood of buffer overflow and stalling of the video service.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ammar et al. (US 6215766) discloses Hierarchical Rate Control of Receivers in a Communication System Transmitting Layered Video Multicast Data with Retransmission (LVMR).
Gu et al. (US 2012/0281062) discloses a Method, Device, Terminal and System for Switching Video Resolution.
Zhang et al. (US 2020/0099981) discloses a Fault Detection Method, Monitoring Device, and Network Device.
Jiang et al. (US 2007/0030338) discloses a Video Ringback Tone.
Jain et al. (US 2021/0204011) discloses a Method for Estimation of Quality of Experience (QOE)
Metrics for Video Streaming Using Passive Measurements.
Panchal et al. (US 2016/0381691) discloses Methods of Adapting Codec Data Rate Based on Radio
Condition to Improve LTE Service Coverage and Capacity.
Jung et al. (US 2015/0103785) discloses a Method and Apparatus for Controlling Resource.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES P SEYMOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/JAMES P SEYMOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights