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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu et al (US PG Pub No. 2015/0200750).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Lu et al teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium having executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processing unit, to cause one or more causes the processing unit to perform a method to manage a video stream (Abstract, Para. 0025) the method comprising:
receiving, with a video playout device [201], a plurality of packets for a video stream from a transmitting device via a server [200] (i.e. one or more receivers/clients 201 receive the data packets from the transmitter/server 200)(Para. 0032, 0043);
storing a first packet of the plurality of packets in a first buffer when the first packet is on-time (i.e. the receiver/client 201 maintains a delivery queue (buffer/cache) 236 to hold all of the received data packets from both data and control channels )(Para. 0032, 0046);
storing a second packet of the plurality of packets in a second buffer when the second packet is late (i.e. transmitter (sender, server) 200 maintains a cache 235 of the most recent packets that were sent to its receivers/clients) (Para. 0032, 0047); and
forwarding a frame from the second buffer to the first buffer when frame is complete (i.e. If the requested packet(s) is/are found in the local cache 235, the sender/server 200 retransmits in unicast a copy of the packet to the receiver 201) (Para. 0032, 0042, 0049-50).
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected wherein the method represented by the executable instructions further comprises: requesting a retransmission of the second packet (Para. 0046-47).
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected wherein the second packet is cached at the server (Para. 0045).
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected wherein the second packet is cached in the server and the retransmission request is sent to the server (Para. 0045, 0046).
Claim 5 is rejected wherein the method represented by the executable comprises: determining if a packet of the plurality of packets is late (Para. 0046).
Claim 6 is rejected wherein the packet is late when that packet arrives after a corresponding playout deadline (Para. 0046 and 0050).
Claim 7 is rejected wherein a complete frame is where the method represented by the executable instructions further comprises: determining that the frame is complete when packets for this frame have arrived or have been reconstructed (Para. 0046, 0050).
Claim 8 is rejected wherein the method represented by the executable instructions further comprises: determining that the complete frame is ready to be played; decoding the complete frame; and playing the frame (Para. 0046, 0050).
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) 9-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al, in view of Munson et al (US PG Pub No. 2006/0159098).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Lu et al teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the method represented by the executable instructions further comprises: responsive to a determination that a packet of the plurality of packets in a video stream is missing (Para. 0046),
requesting a retransmission of the missing packet (0047), requesting a retransmission of the missing packet (Para. 0047). The reference teach determining priority for retransmission of loss packets and network statistics (Para. 0009-10) but is unclear with respect to determining an aggressiveness factor, the aggressiveness factor determined using a network statistic; request using a comparison of a time since last retransmission request and the aggressiveness factor.
In similar field of endeavor, Munson et al teaches determining an aggressiveness factor, the aggressiveness factor determined using a network statistic; request using a comparison of a time since last retransmission request and the aggressiveness factor (Abstract; Fig. 4, 6-7; Para. 0044, 0093, 0114, 0127). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of predictable transfer speeds independent of the network distance or congestion, automatic full utilization of bandwidth, and the ability to share bandwidth proportionally with other traffic when no bandwidth is unused.
Regarding claim 10, Lu and Munson, the combination teaches the packet of the plurality of packets is declared determined to be missing from a detected when there is a gap in a sequence number of incoming packets (Lu: Para. 0052).
Regarding claim 11, Lu and Munson, the combination teaches determining that whether a requested retransmission has been previously requested; and requesting a transmission packet when a requested retransmission has not been sent (Lu: Para. 0046 and Munson: Para. 0088).
Regarding claim 12, Lu and Munson, the combination teaches keeping tracking of previous sent retransmission requests (Munson: Para. 0088).
Regarding claim 13, Lu and Munson, the combination teaches the aggressiveness factor is portion of a round-trip time before requesting a retransmission of the missing packet (Munson: Abstract; Fig. 4, 6-7; Para. 0044, 0093, 0114, 0127).
Regarding claim 14, Lu and Munson, the combination teaches sending retransmission request. The combination is unclear with respect to determining when there is room in a budget, and sending the retransmission request when there is room in the budget to send the retransmission request. However, the examiner takes official notice that both concepts and advantages are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination by specifically determining when there is room in a budget, and sending the retransmission request when there is room in the budget to send the retransmission request before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the common knowledge purpose of automatic full utilization of bandwidth, and the ability to share bandwidth proportionally with other traffic.
Regarding claim 15, Lu and Munson, the combination is unclear with respect to the budget includes a short term budget and a long term budget. However, the examiner takes official notice that both concepts and advantages are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination by specifically the budget includes a short term budget and a long term budget before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the common knowledge purpose of automatic full utilization of bandwidth, and the ability to share bandwidth proportionally with other traffic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUNAL LANGHNOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571) 272-7527. 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.
/KUNAL LANGHNOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425