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 Amendment
This action is in response to the remarks entered on 06/12/2026.
Claims 1, 3-21 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 18 & 20 are amended.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claim 21 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 06/12/2026, pages 4-5, regarding the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 18-20 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered, and are moot upon further consideration and a new ground(s) of rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aaron et al. (US 2016/0295216 A1) (hereinafter Aaron) in view of Keerthi (US 2017/0055266 A1) (hereinafter Keerthi) as outlined below.
In response to Applicant’s remark that Examiner’s previously-cited references do not show the Applicant’s newly-recited claim limitations, the Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the rejection of claims 1 & 18-20 below, wherein Applicant’s newly-recited limitations are addressed by Keerthi for the reasons as outlined below.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aaron et al. (US 2016/0295216 A1) (hereinafter Aaron) in view of Keerthi (US 2017/0055266 A1) (hereinafter Keerthi).
Regarding claim 1, Aaron discloses a method comprising:
receiving a plurality of representations of a relationship between bitrate and quality for a first portion of content [Paragraph [0005], [0024]-[0035] & [0055], source inspector 120 receiving bitrate ladder comprising “rungs” as plurality of representations of bitrate and resolution as quality, wherein step 604 partitions source data 105, as content, into N segments as first portions], wherein representations in the plurality of representations are based on respective second portions of the content that is included in the first portion of content [Paragraph [0005], [0024]-[0035] & [0055]-[0057], Encoder 140 receiving bitrate ladder comprising “rungs” measured from fixed-length samples at midpoint of segments, as second portions of content of the segments];
generating clusters of the plurality of representations [Paragraph [0055]-[0060], Bucketing unit 260 setting complexity bucket units as clusters];
analyzing the clusters to determine a first list of encoding operational points for respective clusters [Paragraph [0051]-[0060], Fig. 3, Complexity analyzer determining bit rate ladders 134s as first list of encoding operational points for each bucket as clusters];
analyzing the first list of encoding operational points for respective cluster to determine a second list of encoding operational points [Paragraph [0051]-[0060], Fig. 3, Complexity analyzer generates PSNR graph 255 including best-fit curve, and then bucketing unit 260 selects complexity bucket and, by proxy, bit rate ladder 134 as second list of encoding operational points]; and
outputting the second list of encoding operational points for use in encoding the first portion of content [Paragraph [0051]-[0060], bit rate ladder 130 outputs source-tuned bitrate ladder 135 to encoder 140 for encoding source data 105].
However, Aaron does not explicitly disclose wherein generating clusters of the plurality of representations comprises: analyzing the representations based on a clustering process to form the clusters, wherein each cluster includes one or more of the representations.
Keerthi teaches wherein generating clusters of the plurality of representations comprises: analyzing the representations based on a clustering process to form the clusters, wherein each cluster includes one or more of the representations [Paragraph [0031] The good cluster may also be determined based on one or more of a channel quality indicator from the mobile devices, a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), a bit error rate (BER), a number of packet retransmissions, a signal to noise ratio (S/N), a number of call failures, a user feedback, a user requested power-down at a same bit-rate, and/or a user requested power-up].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Aaron to integrate the teachings in Keerthi, providing smooth transition between predictive and mobile-assisted spectral allocation (Keerthi, Paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Aaron and Keerthi disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Aaron discloses wherein: the first portion of content comprises a chunk, and a second portion of the content comprises a segment, wherein the chunk includes a plurality of segments [Paragraph [0005], [0024]-[0035] & [0055], wherein step 604 partitions source data 105, as content, into N segments as chunks, fixed-length samples at midpoint of segments, reading as segments].
Regarding claims (18-19), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims (18-19) recite steps similar to the method of using the same as claimed in claims (1-2) treated in the above rejection. Therefore, claims (18-19) corresponds to method claims (1-2) and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Aaron discloses of the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions [Paragraph [0066]-[0067], More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of the computer readable storage medium would include the following: an electrical connection having one or more wires, a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing].
Regarding claim 20, apparatus claim 20 is drawn to the apparatus using/performing the same method as claimed in claim 1. Therefore apparatus claim 20 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Aaron discloses of one or more computer processors; and a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions for controlling the one or more computer processors to be operable [Paragraph [0066]-[0067], More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of the computer readable storage medium would include the following: an electrical connection having one or more wires, a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, for a processor to execute general purpose instructions].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-17 & 21 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, and overcoming the nonstatutory double patenting rejections outlined above.
Claims 3-17 & 21 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 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 at 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
