DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/20226 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Jain does not disclose selecting (at a client) or receiving (at a server) an "identifier of a user quality of experience" that is associated with "a group of constraint flag values," nor does Jain teach that such constraint flag values indicate "whether to activate or deactivate an associated encoding tool of a video encoder,", Remarks, page 10. To this matter, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 calls for “a client.. selecting an identifier of a user quality of experience, the identifier being associated with a group of constraints flag values”. Jain clearly teaches that a client (multiple-level stat monitor109, which can be an integrated part of the client equipment Fig. 1 and 2; [0028]; [0037]) monitors information identifying the state of client QOE metrics that fall or is associated to a group of categories with respective values ([0028]; [0029]; [0034]; [0037]-[0039]). Information that identifies a QOE status, is an identifier. There is no requirement on the claim language regarding any specific format or characteristic for the claimed identifier. Additionally, with the identified information of QOE status, encoding parameters will change accordingly. Each category metric is associated with corresponding parameters ([0065]-[0069]; [0078]).
“Jain describes a system for "passive" network monitoring and adjustment. Jain explicitly states that its techniques are "'passive' in the sense that these techniques do not require that the ISP have access to the client device" and that "No hardware or software is required at the client device." , Remarks, page 8. To this matter, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, Jain clearly teaches that a client (multiple-level stat monitor109, which can be an integrated part of the client equipment Fig. 1 and 2; [0028]; [0037]) monitors information identifying the state of client QOE metrics that fall or is associated to a group of categories with respective values ([0028]; [0029]; [0034]; [0037]-[0039]). Additionally, claim language does not require “the technique” to be ‘active’ or prohibiting to be ‘passive’. The claim language calls only for a client selecting/obtaining an identifier of a user quality of experience, where the identifier is associated with a group of constraint flag values’.
Therefore, the examiner respectfully believes that the art of record covers applicant’s invention as claimed and maintains the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10, 15 and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jain et al. (hereinafter ‘Jain’, Pub. No. 2021/0204011).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 15 and 22, Jain teaches a method, in a client device (multiple-level stat monitor 109, Figs. 1 and 2; [0028]; [0037]), comprising:
selecting an identifier of a user quality of experience , the identifier being associated with a group of constraint flag values, each constraint flag value of the group indicating whether to activate or deactivate an associated encoding tool of a video encoder ([0028]; [0029]; [0033]; [0034]; [0037]-[0039], where monitor 109 tracks information for the user device identifying QoE metrics that fall on a group of categories with respective values, after the analysis QoE estimated scores generated that will change encoding parameters);
transmitting the identifier to a server; and, receiving, from the server, video data encoded with encoding tools activated or deactivated responsive to the group of constraint flag values associated with the transmitted identifier ([0065]-[0069]; [0078]).
For claims 7 and 15,
Server devices or distribution elements use the methods of estimating QoE values at the client to correspond with modifying encoding parameters).
Regarding claims 8 and 23, Jain teaches wherein the video data is encoded by a video encoder tuned based on the identifier ([0068]; [0069]; [0078]).
Regarding claims 9 and 24, Jain teaches wherein a tuning of the video encoder comprises activating or deactivating encoding tools associated with the group of constraint flags in function of the constraint flag values specified by the identifier ([0049]; [0069]).
Regarding claims 10 and 25, Jain teaches wherein the identifier is used to specify at least one encoding decision allowing defining a particular implementation of a video encoder independently of the constraint flag values and any profile ([0049]; [0069]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, 20, 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. (hereinafter ‘Jain’, Pub. No. 2021/204011) in view of Ahmed et al. (hereinafter ‘Ahmed’, Pub. No. 2020/0220916).
Regarding claims 4, 12, 19 and 27, Jain teaches all the limitations of the claim they depend on. On the other hand, Jain does not explicitly teach
wherein selecting an identifier comprises selecting the identifier is after a phase of capability exchange with the server comprising a reception from the server of a session description protocol message specifying encoding tools that can be activated or deactivated or a set of qualities of experience that can be selected.
However, in an analogous art, Ahmed teaches a system that allows video streaming of audio/video remotely. The system establishes multimedia session between the receiving and streaming devices ([0022]; [0069]). Upon a transmission of a game identifier, and the analysis and exchange of capabilities of the receiving device, content is encoded accordingly ([0031]-[0039]). Based on the capabilities, session class can be activated for specific display device ([0040]). The encoder can provide a DesktopCapture service to the host computer ([0036]). Additionally, for real-time streaming, collected telemetry data can be provided into H.264 feed through SEI messages ([0054]-[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jain’s invention with Ahmed’s feature of exchanging capabilities with the server with a message specifying encoding tools that can be activated/deactivated for the benefit of optimizing capabilities for a higher quality of experience.
Regarding claims 5, 13, 20 and 28, Jain teaches all the limitations of the claims they depend on. On the other hand, Jain does not explicitly teach before selecting the identifier, the method comprises obtaining a description of a set of qualities of experience that can be selected in a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message.
However, in an analogous art, Ahmed teaches a system that allows video streaming of audio/video remotely. The system establishes multimedia session between the receiving and streaming devices ([0022]; [0069]). Upon a transmission of a game identifier, and the analysis and exchange of capabilities of the receiving device, content is encoded accordingly ([0031]-[0039]). Based on the capabilities, session class can be activated for specific display device ([0040]). The encoder can provide a DesktopCapture service to the host computer ([0036]). Additionally, for real-time streaming, collected telemetry data can be provided into H.264 feed through SEI messages ([0054]-[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jain’s invention with Ahmed’s feature of using SEI messages for the benefit of improving streaming performance indicating initial buffering and other information for a higher quality of experience.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Phillips et al. (WO 2022/093238): teaches a system for multisession remote game scheme that tries to achieve a low motion-to-photon latency.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR S PARRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Mostly 10-6PM.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-2721915. 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.
/OMAR S PARRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights