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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/26 has been entered.
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.
(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) 1-4, 6, 8-14,17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kellerman et al. (hereinafter Kellerman, US 2013/0091214 A1).
As per claim 1, Kellerman discloses a computer-implemented method for encoding video content for one or more devices associated with a group-based communication platform [Fig. 1, Fig. 13], the computer- implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a server device, a request associated with a video content, the request including information associated with one or more user accounts of the group-based communication platform [fig. 13: 1303, fig. 1: SNET processing system receives the request], the group-based communication platform including a plurality of virtual spaces that are authorized to be accessed by different sets of users of the group-based communication platform [[0018-0019]: social network sites are web-based and typically organized around user profiles and/or collections of content accessible by members of the network. Membership comprises groupings of individuals, individuals, permitted to interact as determined by social network service, [0076, 0178, 0150]: SNET infrastructure can include one or more SNET circle/groups, i.e. different virtual spaces to be accessed by different groups of users];
determining, by the server device and based at least in part on the request and the information, device information of one or more receiver devices associated with the one or more user accounts [[0079], [0173-0174]: For the requested content from the device, various characteristics and capabilities of the device is determined by the SNET processing system including user membership];
determining, by the server device and based at least in part on the device information, one or more video transcoding settings associated with the video content [[0079], [0173-0174]];
identifying a device to transcode the video content based at least in part on the one or more video transcoding settings [[0079, 0093], fig. 13]
generating one or more encoded video contents based at least in part on the device encoding the video content using the one or more video transcoding settings [0079, 0092, 0130, fig. 13]: and
sending the one or more encoded video contents to the one or more receiver devices [0079, 0092, 10130]].
As per claim 2, Kellerman discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the device information comprises one or more of: one or more device resolutions associated with the one or more receiver devices, or one or more pixel densities associated with the one or more receiver devices, and wherein the one or more video transcoding settings are determined based at least in part on one or more of: the one or more device resolutions or the one or more pixel densities [0079-0080, 0092, 0173].
As per claim 3, Kellerman discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, based at least in part on the request, a scheduled time associated with the request to share the video content [[0170-0171]: request is request to receive the content instantly or currently]; and determining, based at least in part on the scheduled time, the device for transcoding the video content [0095, 130-131, 0176]: if the requested content to be transcoded based on request, one or more transcoders to transcode the content are identified and selected from local or non-local, based on availability].
As per claim 4, Kellerman discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the scheduled time comprises a current time, wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises: determining, based at least in part on the current time, the server device for transcoding the video content; receiving, by the server device and from a sender device, the video content; and transcoding, by the server device and based at least in part on the one or more video transcoding settings, the video content to the one or more encoded video contents [[130-131, 170-176]: request is request to receive the content instantly or currently and transcoder is selected from local or remote based on its availability].
As per claim 6, Kellerman discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, based at least in part on the request, a connection type associated with the request; and determining, based at least in part on the connection type, the device for transcoding the video content [0079, 0093, 0130-0131, 0170-0176]: based on communication pathway capabilities, transcoder is selected].
As per claim 8, Kellerman discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein receiving the request associated with the video content comprises: receiving, by the server device and from a sender device, the request for sharing the video content to the one or more receiver devices [[0126], [0149], fig. 13].
As per claim 9, Kellerman discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the server device and from a sender device, the video content [[fig. 1: SNET processing system can retrieve content from content source, fig. 2: SNET processing system can received SNET content/media from external social content/media source], wherein receiving the request associated with the video content comprises: receiving, by the server device and from the one or more receiver devices, the request for retrieving the video content [fig. 13: receiving a request]].
As per claims 10-14, 17-18 and 20, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1-4, 6 and 8-9. Therefore, claims 10-14,17-18 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-4, 6 and 8-9.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellerman et al. (hereinafter Kellerman, US 2013/0091214 A1) in view of LIU et al. (hereinafter LIU, US 2014/0115050 A1).
As per claim 5, Kellerman discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, as set forth above. Kellerman further discloses receiving, by the server device and from the sender device, the video content; and receiving, by the server device and from the sender device, the one or more encoded video contents transcoded by the sender device [[0130-0131], 0170-0176], [fig. 2-3, fig. 13, [0130-0131], [0079]].
However, Kellerman does not disclose wherein the scheduled time comprises a future time, wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises: determining, based at least in part on the future time, a sender device for transcoding the video content.
LIU discloses determining based in part on the request, a scheduled time associated with the request, wherein the scheduled time comprises a future time, wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises: determining, based at least in part on the future time, a sender device for transcoding the video content [[0041]: based on the request and url in the request, transcoding server is scheduled by the transcoding scheduling server, url for the file is received, and transcoding server transcodes at the scheduled time the content, and sends the transcoded content back, [0051-0055]].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kellerman in view of LIU in order to determine available transcoder device based on future time.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have ensured transcoding server was available based on the loads of the transcoding servers [LIU: 0051], ensuring transcoding guarantee.
As per claim 15, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
Claim(s) 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellerman et al. (hereinafter Kellerman, US 2013/0091214 A1) in view of LIU et al. (hereinafter LIU, US 2014/0115050 A1) and further in view of Jung et al. (hereinafter Jung, US 2005/0187959 A1).
As per claim 7, Kellerman-LIU discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6, as set forth above, further comprising: generating a first message indicating a suggestion to upload the video content at a further time (LIU: [0041, 0058]: task management server informs the client to directly upload the contents of the file to be transcoded); sending from the server device to a sender device, the first message (LIU: [0041]: inform the client); determining, based at least in part on the further time, a sender device for transcoding the video content [LIU: [0041]: based on the request and url in the request, transcoding server is scheduled by the transcoding scheduling server, url for the file is received, and transcoding server transcodes at the scheduled time the content, and sends the transcoded content back, [0051-0055]]; receiving, by the server device and from the sender device, the video content [0041, 0039]: client uploads the video to be transcoded] and receiving by the server device and from the sender device, the one or more encoded video contents (fig. 2, [0052]: transcoding server executes transcoding and provides results; Kellerman: fig. 13]. Same rationale as in claim 5 applies.
However, Kellerman-LIU does not teach generating based at least in part on the metered connection, a first message and receiving by the server device and from the sender device, a second message indicating uploading the video content at the further time.
Jung discloses generating based at least in part on the metered connection, a first message and receiving by the server device and from the sender device, a second message indicating uploading the video content at the further time [fig. 2: client is connected to the server via Internet connection using wifi connection; fig. 4, step #404, 406]: receiving message indicating upload can resume and client sending initiate file transfer message back to server].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kellerman-LIU in view of Jung in order to inform client device to resume uploading at a time and client device initiating the transfer by sending the message to the server.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated in order to upload and schedule the transcoding when client device has enough bandwidth to upload the content, thus optimizing the upload functionality.
As per claim 16, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Claim(s) 10, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellerman et al. (hereinafter Kellerman, US 2013/0091214 A1) in view of Civanlar et al. (US 2010/0293584 A1).
As per claim 10, Kellerman discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: sending by the server device to the one or more receiver devices, a first encoded video content of the one or more encoded video content [fig. 13].
However, Kellerman does not disclose receiving by the server device and from the one or more receiver devices, a zoom-in request and sending based at least in part on the zoom-in request and to the one or more receiver devices, a second encoded video content of the one or more encoded video contents, wherein the second encoded video content has a higher resolution than the first encoded video content.
Civanlar teaches receiving by the server device and from the one or more receiver devices, a zoom-in request and sending based at least in part on the zoom-in request and to the one or more receiver devices, a second encoded video content of the one or more encoded video contents, wherein the second encoded video content has a higher resolution than the first encoded video content [[0067-0068]: receiver can instantly zoom the low resolution material and request from the video server the higher layers of encoded video of the selected video content to improve the video quality].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kellerman in view of Civanlar in order to utilize zoom-in function to request higher resolution content.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated in order to improve the video quality that is being presented to the user [Civanlar: [0067]].
As per claim 19, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 10. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tso et al., US 6,421,733 B1: System for dynamically transcoding data transmitted between computers.
Denoual, US 2005/0021726 A1: Optimization of quality of service in the distribution of bitstreams.
Hildreth et al., US 2007/0226365: Aspects of digital media content distribution.
Foti, US 2011/0320559 A1: Remote access with media translation.
Atkins et al., US 2011/0083073 A1: Synchronized recording and playback of a plurality of media content.
MEuninck et al., US 2012/0023531 A1: Presentation of media content to a requesting device.
Robbins, US 2014/0038514 A1: Display aware transcoder source selection system.
RAO, US 2011/0130172 A1: Mobile based learning and testing for automated test assignment, automated class registration and customized material delivery [Teaches virtual spaces for different groups and transcoding content based on receiver capabilities].
Lam et al., US 2018/0300305 A1: Shared templates in a collaborative work environment [Virtual spaces for different teams – Fig. 2].
Microsoft Teams and channels: Create a standard, private or shared channel in MS Teams.
Microsoft Teams Tips and Tricks Webinar – March 2017: Describes how to create/join Teams and create and use channels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL B DIVECHA whose telephone number is 571-272-5863. The examiner can normally be reached IFP Normal Hours M-F: 8am-4.30pm 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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 5712721667. 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.
KAMAL B. DIVECHA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/KAMAL B DIVECHA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights