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 Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 9 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
By the amendment filed 9 December 2025, claims 1 and 15 have been amended, claims 7 and 9 have been canceled, claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-21 are now pending.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-21 are rejected.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Beek (US Pub. 2008/0107173) in view of McGleenon et al (Pub. US 2012/0084460).
Regarding claim 1, van Beek discloses a method of transmitting data by radio signals from at least one first entity, comprising providing data to be transmitted by the first entity which establishes at least one data source, as van Beek describes a server that provides video data for transmission (para. 17). Van Beek further discloses providing information concerning a data transmission rate for the first entity by a data transmission rate manager, as van Beek determines encoder bitrate targets by updating channel, video, and streaming parameters (paras. 21, 22, 43). Van Beek discloses adapting the data transmission rate dynamically based on the information of the data transmission rate manager by an encoder of the first entity, where the encoder/transcoder dynamically adapts rate based on available bandwidth (para. 56). Van Beek also discloses encoding the data to be transmitted by the encoder (para. 21).
However, van Beek does not specifically disclose that the first entity comprises a recognition module having circuitry programmed to recognize at least data fractions in the data to be transmitted by analyzing content of the data to identify data fractions containing information of interest and circuitry that automatically requests from the data transmission rate manager a higher data transmission rate for the first entity in order to transmit data fractions of interest with a higher data transmission rate.
McGleenon from an analogous art discloses a content-aware optimization platform that analyzes content to identify video content of interest and optimize that content on demand. McGleenon teaches that the optimization platform provides “intelligent, device-aware and policy-aware delivery of video content and other content of interest” and that service providers “can identify video content in a response and optimize video content on demand” (para. 34). McGleenon further discloses adjusting the optimized media bit-rate delivered to the subscriber based on bandwidth and selectively optimizing portions of the content to improve playback efficiency (para. 34).
Thus, McGleenon teaches recognizing data fractions containing information of interest and requesting or providing a higher bitrate or transmission rate for such content.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the content-aware recognition and selective bitrate adjustment of McGleenon into the adaptive rate-control system of van Beek to improve efficiency and increase perceptual quality for important content, a predictable application of known techniques to van Beek’s system. Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over van Beek in view of McGleenon.
Regarding claim 2, van Beek discloses that the data transmission rate is adapted when the data to be transmitted is encoded and that the encoder adapts a quality parameter, resolution, and/or frame rate, thereby adapting the data transmission rate (paras. 21, 56).
Regarding claim 3, van Beek discloses that the encoder compresses the data to be transmitted and removes data with lower priority from the data to be transmitted and delays data for later transmission, thereby adapting the data transmission rate (para. 22).
Regarding claim 4, van Beek discloses that the data transmission rate manager automatically adapts the data transmission rate for the first entity (para. 22).
Regarding claim 5, van Beek discloses that the data transmission rate manager automatically adapts the data transmission rate for the first entity based on information obtained concerning a maximum available data transmission rate of a radio channel used by the first entity (para. 56).
Regarding claim 6, van Beek discloses that several first entities are provided which each provide data to be transmitted such that several data sources are provided, and wherein the data transmission rate manager provides information concerning the respective data transmission rates for the several first entities (para. 17).
Regarding claim 8, van Beek discloses that the recognition module includes circuitry that performs an initial analysis of the data to be transmitted with regard to the data transmission rate to be used for the data to be transmitted (para. 43).
Regarding claim 10, van Beek discloses that the request is automatically granted if possible due to boundary conditions and/or wherein the request has to be acknowledged by an operator manually (para. 56).
Regarding claim 11, van Beek discloses that a control module having control circuitry is provided via which the data to be transmitted is controllable (para. 17; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, van Beek discloses that a quality of the data, a zooming, and/or a switching between data sources is controllable (para. 22).
Regarding claim 13, van Beek discloses that a second entity is provided that comprises the data transmission rate manager and/or receives the data to be transmitted, thereby establishing a data sink (para. 17; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, van Beek discloses that an artificial intelligence module is provided which takes upcoming scenarios into account, thereby establishing a predictive adaptation of the data transmission rate (para. 56).
Regarding claim 15, van Beek discloses a system for transmitting data by radio signals comprising a first entity configured to transmit data with a data transmission rate by the radio signals, thereby establishing at least one data source, where the server in van Beek transmits encoded video (para. 17). Van Beek discloses that the first entity includes an encoder configured to encode the data to be transmitted (para. 21). Van Beek discloses a data transmission rate manager having circuitry configured to provide information concerning a data transmission rate for the first entity (paras. 21, 22, 43). Van Beek, however, does not disclose that the first entity further comprises a recognition module having circuitry programmed to recognize at least data fractions in the data to be transmitted by analyzing content of the data to identify data fractions containing information of interest and circuitry that automatically requests from a data transmission rate manager a higher data transmission rate for the first entity in order to transmit data fractions of interest with a higher data transmission rate.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, McGleenon teaches a content recognition platform that identifies content of interest and adjusts bitrate accordingly (para. 34). It would have been obvious to incorporate these features into the system of van Beek to improve adaptive bitrate decisions, making claim 15 unpatentable over van Beek in view of McGleenon.
Regarding claim 16, van Beek discloses that the dynamic adaption of the data transmission rate is based on statistical multiplexing and/or on minimum and maximum data transmission rates per data source (paras. 21–22, 43).
Regarding claim 17, van Beek discloses that the data transmission rate manager includes circuitry configured to obtain information concerning a maximum available data transmission rate of a radio channel used by the first entity (para. 56).
Regarding claim 18, van Beek discloses that the information is obtained by transmission parameters associated with a waveform of radio signals used for transmitting the data (para. 56).
Regarding claim 19, van Beek discloses that the system comprises at least one second entity that comprises the data transmission rate manager and/or is configured to receive the data transmitted by the first entity, thereby establishing a data sink (para. 17; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, van Beek discloses that a control module having control circuitry is provided via which the data to be transmitted is controllable (para. 17; Fig. 1).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Beek (US Pub. 2008/0107173) in view of Mockett (US Pub. 2009/0052450).
Regarding claim 21, van Beek discloses a method of transmitting data by radio signals from a first entity, including:
providing data to be transmitted by the first entity which establishes at least one data source, as van Beek describes transmission of multiple video streams from a server acting as a data source (para. 17);
providing information concerning a data transmission rate for the first entity by a data transmission rate manager, where van Beek describes updating channel, video, and streaming parameters and determining encoder/transcoder bitrate targets (paras. 21, 22, 43);
adapting the data transmission rate dynamically based on the information of the data transmission rate manager, where van Beek describes that the available bandwidth is variable and “the rate is adapted in a dynamic manner” (para. 56);
and encoding the data to be transmitted by the encoder, where van Beek describes encoding/transcoding the data using the calculated amount of bits (para. 21).
However, van Beek does not disclose that a dynamic forward error correction (FEC) is implemented or that the data transmission rate is dynamically adapted in response to changes in the forward error correction.
Mockett (US 2009/0052450) discloses a dynamic forward error correction module configured to adjust the error-correction rate upward or downward based on observed packet loss (para. [0058]). Although Mockett does not explicitly describe adjusting the data transmission rate, adjusting FEC redundancy necessarily affects the net data transmission rate because increasing FEC redundancy reduces available payload bitrate, while decreasing redundancy increases available payload bitrate. This is a well-known consequence of FEC operation in any bandwidth-limited communication system and would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to incorporate the dynamic FEC adjustment of Mockett into the adaptive bitrate system of van Beek to improve robustness and align redundancy levels with payload rate, resulting in the data transmission rate being dynamically adapted in response to changes in forward error correction. Such a combination represents the predictable use of known complementary techniques to optimize streaming efficiency and maintain quality under varying channel conditions.
Accordingly, claim 21 is unpatentable over van Beek in view of Mockett.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
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 LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468