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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 – 13, and 15 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (US 6,014,693, hereafter Ito) in view of MacInnis (US 2016/0134673) in further view of Galdy et al (US 9,407,944, hereafter Galdy) in further view of Botsford et al (US 2017/0085616, hereafter Botsford).
As per claim 1, Ito discloses a server, comprising:
a processor of the server;
and a computer-readable storage medium configured to store instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the server to perform operations, the operations comprising:
recalling static parameters from the computer-readable medium, the static parameters including an upper threshold for an average load of the processor of the server;
determining a second threshold based on the static parameters including the upper threshold, wherein the second threshold is less than the upper threshold;
encoding, by the processor of the server, first segments of a video stream at a variable bitrate while the variable bitrate is assigned a default bitrate (column 6 lines 2 – 8; As shown in FIG. 3, the video data index defines a plurality of settings for the transfer bit rate of video data, an original bit rate, . . . , and indicates which data included in the original video data 12 the video server 1 should transfer to the client 2 when setting the transfer bit rate to one of the plurality of settings.);
assigning, by the processor of the server, the variable bitrate a reduced value in response to a the average load on the processor exceeding the upper threshold (column 6 lines 29 - 43); and
encoding, by the processor of the server, second segments of the video stream after the first stream at the variable bitrate while the variable bitrate is assigned the reduced value to reduce the average load one the processor of the server (column 6 lines 29 – 43).
However, Ito does not explicitly teach a load on the processor. Here, the disclosure focuses on a load on the network in contrast to the claim requirement for determining the load on the processor; and assigning, by the processor of the server, the variable bitrate an increased value in response to the load on the processor being below a second threshold, wherein the increased value is determined based on a status of a transfer buffer.
In the same field of endeavor, MacInnis discloses assigning, by the processor of the server, the variable bitrate a reduced value in response to a load on the processor exceeding a threshold load (¶ 46; At step 322, the client 300 may monitor a performance of the network and/or performance of the client 300 and/or server 302. In many implementations, step 322 may be performed periodically or in parallel with steps 326-334 while the client device 300 is waiting to receive a segment and/or prior to transmitting a next request. As discussed above, monitoring performance may comprise monitoring one or more characteristics, including network congestion, latency, round trip time, processor load, memory usage, buffer fullness, block error rates, packet loss rates, time to receive an entire segment after requesting the segment or after the end of receipt of a previous segment, or any other such characteristics, and comparing characteristic values to one or more thresholds.); and
assigning, by the processor of the server, the variable bitrate an increased value in response to the average load on the processor being below the second threshold, based on the upper threshold wherein the increased value is determined based on a status of a transfer buffer(¶ 46; For example, a characteristic of round trip time from the transmission of a request for a segment until receipt of the entire segment may be compared to a threshold, which may be based on a nominal segment playback length (e.g. a ten second segment). Such a threshold may include a safety margin, such as an additional 5 or 10% of the length, or any other such amount. If the round trip time exceeds the nominal segment playback length (and the safety margin, in implementations using one), the next segment may be requested at a reduced bit rate. Conversely, if the round trip time is significantly less than the nominal segment playback length (e.g. less than 50% of the segment playback length, or any other such value), the next segment may be requested at an increased bit rate. Multiple thresholds may be set for any characteristic, and a quality or bitrate may be selected based on whether the characteristic exceeds one or more thresholds.; MacInnis is clear. As earlier disclosed, any characteristic such as buffer fullness can be compared to a threshold and the server will increase the bitrate based on the result of the status of the buffer).
However, Ito or MacInnis does not explicitly teach recalling static parameters from the computer-readable medium, the static parameters including an upper threshold for an average load of the processor of the server;
determining a second threshold based on the static parameters including the upper threshold, wherein the second threshold is less than the upper threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Galdy teaches recalling static parameters from the computer-readable medium, the static parameters including an upper threshold for an average load of the processor of the server; determining a second threshold based on the static parameters including the upper threshold, wherein the second threshold is less than the upper threshold (column 10 lines 40 – 55; The set of data is presented in rows of data in FIG. 3A, and for each row of data, the source attributes (such as the source bit rate, source height in pixels, the source frame rate, and whether the source is interlaced or not), the training workflow configuration variables (such as output height in pixels, and output megapixels per second (MPps), the number of output layers, and the total output bit rate), and the average CPU usage in percentage of the processor resource are listed. The average CPU is an average in a period of time: for example, the CPU usage may be sampled every five seconds, and the average CPU may be the average of the sampled CPU usages of one to five minutes. Although not illustrated, the CPU resource usage such as the 90th percentile and the maximum CPU usages are very important in some applications for some clients, and they may be given more weight or used exclusively in generating the platform performance profile.).
However, MacInnis in view of Ito in further view of Galdy does not explicitly teach static parameters including a bitrate-decrease function and a bitrate-increase function.
In the same field of endeavor, Botsford discloses static parameters including a bitrate-decrease function and a bitrate-increase function (¶ 45 – 49; Botsford discloses having a profile bitrate-decrease function and a profile bitrate-increase function. The examiner notes that the functions being attached to a profile indicates that these are static parameters in nature and applied to the invention to preserver computing resources ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Ito in view of MacInnis in further view of Galdy in further view of Botsford. The advantage is optimization of computing resources.
As per claim 2, Ito discloses the server of claim 1, wherein assigning the variable bitrate the reduced value comprises applying a bitrate-decrease function to the default bit rate (column 6 lines 29 – 43).
As per claim 4, Ito discloses the server of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
transmitting the first segments of the video stream to a client device while the variable bitrate is assigned the default bitrate; and transmitting the second segments of the video stream to the client device while the variable bitrate is assigned the reduced value (column 6 lines 29 – 43).
As per claim 5, Ito discloses the server of claim 1, wherein assigning the variable bitrate the reduced value reduces the load on the processor (column 6 lines 29 – 43).
As per claim 6, Ito discloses the server of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: assigning the variable bitrate a third value in response to the load on the processor dropping below a minimum load; and encoding third segments of the video stream after the second segments at the variable bitrate while the variable bitrate is assigned the third value (column 6 lines 29 - 43).
As per claim 7, Ito discloses the server of claim 6, wherein the server assigns the third value to the variable bitrate using a bitrate-increase function (column 6 lines 29 – 43).
As per claim 8, Ito discloses the server of claim 1.
However, Ito does not explicitly teach wherein the default bit rate is determined based on a buffer occupancy of a transfer buffer of the computer-readable storage medium.
In the same field of endeavor, MacInnis teaches wherein the default bit rate is determined based on a buffer occupancy of a transfer buffer of the computer-readable storage medium (¶ 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Ito in view of MacInnis. The advantage is optimization of computing resources.
As per claim 9, Ito discloses the server of claim 1, wherein the variable bitrate is set to the first value in response to a request from a client device for the video stream encoded at the first value (column 7 lines 43 - 50).
Regarding claim 10, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 8 are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 6 are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 9 are applicable for claim 20.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of MacInnis in further view of Galdy in further view of Botsford (hereafter Ito) in further view of Ayre et al (US 2019/0306551, hereafter Ayre).
As per claim 3, Ito discloses the server of claim 1.
However, Ito does not explicitly teach wherein the reduced value is calculated as a percentage of the default bit rate.
In the same field of endeavor, Ayre teaches wherein the reduced value is calculated as a percentage of the default bit rate (Ayre: ¶ 147).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Ito in view of MacInnis in further view of Ayre. The advantage is optimization of computing resources.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of MacInnis in further view of Galdy in further view of Botsford (hereafter Ito) in further view of Shivadas et al (US 8,914,836, hereafter Shivadas).
As per claim 14, Ito in view of MacInnis discloses the server of claim 10.
However, Ito in view of MacInnis does not explicitly teach wherein the load on the processor comprises an average load on the processor over a predetermined duration.
In the same field of endeavor, Shivadas teaches wherein the load on the processor comprises an average load on the processor over a predetermined duration (column 2 lines 48 – 65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Ito in view of MacInnis in further view of Shivadas. The advantage is optimization of computing resources.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487