DETAILED ACTION
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 office action is in response to communications filed 4/15/2026. Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 11 and 16-20 are amended. Claim 7 is cancelled. Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 6-8, 11-13, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai (of record) in view of Shi et al (US20070291836, hereinafter Shi).
Regarding claims 1, 11, 17 and 20, Nagai discloses a computer-implemented method for transmitting frames of digital content to a client device (see Nagai, at least at Figs. 1, 4 and 12-13, and related text), the method comprising:
transmitting, to a client device for playback (see Nagai, at least at [0018], [0027], [0051], and other related text), a plurality of encoded frames of digital content according to a first interval for spacing apart reference frames (i.e., video frames encoded into packet data, see Nagai, at least at [0006]-[0009], [0016], [0018], [0023], [0051], and other related text);
determining that a frame loss rate associated with the plurality of encoded frames of digital content satisfies a frame loss condition (see Nagai, at least at [0051]-[0052], [0055], [0058]-[0063], and other related text);
in response to determining that the frame loss condition has been satisfied, increasing the first interval (see Nagai, at least at [0128], and other related text) to generate a new interval for spacing apart reference frames when transmitting additional encoded frames of the digital content to the client device (see Nagai, at least at [0068], [0085]-[0086], [0120]-[0128], and other related text);
generating a new reference frame of digital content based on the new interval (see Nagai, at least at [0120]-[0128], and other related text); and
transmitting the new reference frame of digital content to the client device for playback (see Nagai, at least at [0120]-[0128], and other related text).
Nagai does not specifically disclose determining that a number of frames included in the plurality of encoded frames of digital content that failed to reach the client device exceeds a first amount and performing in response to determining that the first amount frame loss condition has been exceeded.
In an analogous art relating to a system for error management, Shi discloses determining that a number of frames included in the plurality of encoded frames of digital content that failed to reach the client device exceeds a first amount and performing in response to determining that the first amount has been exceeded (see Shi, at least at [0107]-[0108], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Nagai to include the limitations as taught by Shi for the advantage of more reliably controlling error.
Regarding claim 6, Nagai in view of Shi discloses wherein determining that the number of frames that failed to reach the client device exceeds a first amount (see Shi, at least at [0107]-[0108], and other related text) comprises determining that a frame loss rate exceeds a threshold value (i.e. packet loss is 0 or not, see Nagai, at least at [0058], and other related text).
Regarding claim 8, Nagai in view of Shi discloses wherein after transmitting the new reference frame, determining that a frame loss rate is less than a threshold value (i.e., the value of the “small number” of errors that is used to determine the GOP interval, see Nagai, at least at [0120]-[0128], and other related text).
Regarding claim 12, Nagai in view of Shi discloses wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:
generating a second plurality of encoded frames of digital content based on the new interval (see Nagai, at least at [0056], [0128], [0137]-[0139], and other related text); and
transmitting the second plurality of encoded frames of digital content to the client device for playback (see Nagai, at least at [0128], [0137]-[0139], and other related text).
Regarding claim 13, Nagai in view of Shi discloses wherein each encoded frame of digital content included in the second plurality of encoded frames of digital content is decoded based on information included in the new reference frame (see Nagai, at least at [0022]-[0023], [0056], [0128], [0137]-[0139], and other related text).
Regarding claim 18, Nagai in view of Shi discloses wherein the new interval is greater than an old interval that was used to generate the plurality of encoded frames of digital content (see Nagai, at least at [0128], and other related text).
Claims 2-5 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai (of record) in view of Shi (previously cited), as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Lin (of record).
Regarding claim 2, Nagai in view of Shi does not specifically disclose receiving a frame loss notification from the client device; and
determining that a first encoded frame of digital content included in the plurality of encoded frames of digital content was lost during transmission based on the frame loss notification.
In an analogous art relating to a system for improving packet loss recovery, Lin discloses receiving a frame loss notification from a client device (see Lin, at least at [0063]-[0066], and other related text); and
determining that a first encoded frame of digital content included in the plurality of encoded frames of digital content was lost during transmission based on the frame loss notification (i.e., encoder uses the notification to determine which packet is lost and which frame to choose for referencing, see Lin, at least at [0063]-[0066], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Nagai in view of Shi to include the limitations as taught by Lin for the advantage of more efficiently improving video delivery over a network.
Regarding claim 3, Nagai in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin discloses determining that a first encoded frame of digital content included in the plurality of encoded frames of digital content was lost during transmission (i.e., encoder uses the notification to determine which packet is lost/the initial lost packet and which frame to choose for referencing, see Lin, at least at [0063]-[0066], and other related text);
determining that the first encoded frame of digital content comprises a reference frame (see Lin, at least at [0063]-[0066], and other related text);
in response, generating an I-frame (see Lin, at least at [0065], and other related text); and
transmitting the I-frame to the client device for playback (see Lin, at least at [0065]-[0066] and other related text).
Regarding claim 4, Nagai in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin discloses determining that a first encoded frame of digital content included in the plurality of encoded frames of digital content was lost during transmission (i.e., encoder uses the notification to determine which packet is lost/the initial lost packet and which frame to choose for referencing, see Lin, at least at [0063]-[0066], and other related text);
determining that the first encoded frame of digital content does not comprise a reference frame (i.e., the reference frame/initial lost frame is not an I-frame in this case/does not require an I-frame to be encoded, see Lin, at least at [0063]-[0066], and other related text);
in response, generating a P-frame based on the new interval (see Lin, at least at [0065]-[0066] and other related text); and
transmitting the P-frame to the client device for playback (see Lin, at least at [0065]-[0066] and other related text).
Regarding claim 5, Nagai in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin discloses determining that the client device has not acknowledged receipt of the new reference frame of digital content (i.e., the continued sending of the packet loss reports until the arrival of a new reference frame, see Lin, at least at [0067], and other related text);
in response, generating an I-frame (see Lin, at least at [0067], and other related text); and
transmitting the I-frame to the client device for playback (see Lin, at least at [0067], and other related text).
Regarding claim 14, Nagai in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin discloses wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:
receiving a frame loss notification from the client device indicating that a first encoded frame of digital content included in the second plurality of encoded frames of digital content was lost during transmission (i.e., RTP performs transferring data to completion and therefore must include performing corrections for subsequently generated data, see Lin, at least at [0063]-[0066], and other related text);
determining that the first encoded frame of digital content comprises a reference frame (see Lin, at least at [0063]-[0067], and other related text) based on the new interval (see Nagai, at least at [0128], [0137], and other related text) and latency data (i.e., timestamp data, see Lin, at least at [0063], [0066], and other related text) associated with a network to which the client device is connected (see Lin, at least at [0063], [0066], and other related text);
in response, generating an I-frame (see Lin, at least at [0065], and other related text); and
transmitting the I-frame to the client device for playback (see Lin, at least at [0065]-[0066] and other related text).
Regarding claim 15, Nagai in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin discloses wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:
receiving a frame loss notification from the client device indicating that a first encoded frame of digital content included in the second plurality of encoded frames of digital content was lost during transmission (i.e., RTP performs transferring data to completion and therefore must include performing corrections for subsequently generated data, see Lin, at least at [0063]-[0066], and other related text);
determining that the first encoded frame of digital content does not comprise a reference frame based on information included in the frame loss notification that identifies the first encoded frame of digital content(i.e., the reference frame/initial lost frame is not an I-frame in this case/does not require an I-frame to be encoded, see Lin, at least at [0063]-[0066], and other related text);
in response, generating a P-frame based on the new interval (see Lin, at least at [0065]-[0066] and other related text); and
transmitting the P-frame to the client device for playback (see Lin, at least at [0065]-[0066] and other related text).
Regarding claim 16, Nagai in view of Shi, and further in view of Lin discloses wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:
receiving a frame loss notification from the client device indicating that a first encoded frame of digital content included in the second plurality of encoded frames of digital content was lost during transmission (i.e., RTP performs transferring data to completion and therefore must include performing corrections for subsequently generated data, see Lin, at least at [0063]-[0066], and other related text);
in response, determining a frame loss rate associated with the second plurality of encoded frames of digital content (see Nagai, at least at [0051]-[0052], [0055], [0058]-[0063], and other related text);
determining a second new interval based on the new frame loss rate (i.e., RTP performs transferring data to completion and therefore must include performing corrections for subsequently generated data (see Nagai, at least at [0068], [0085]-[0086], [0120]-[0128], and other related text), wherein the second new interval is different than the new interval (see Nagai, at least at [0068], [0085]-[0086], [0120]-[0128], and other related text);
generating a second new reference frame of digital content based on the second new interval (see Nagai, at least at [0068], [0085]-[0086], [0120]-[0128], and other related text); and
transmitting the second new reference frame of digital content to the client device for playback (see Nagai, at least at [0068], [0085]-[0086], [0120]-[0128], and other related text).
Claims 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai (of record) in view of Shi (previously cited), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Horowitz (of record).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Nagai in view of Shi does not specifically disclose in response to determining that the frame loss rate is less than the threshold value, determining a second interval for spacing apart reference frames that is less than the new interval.
In an analogous art relating to a system for improving packet loss recovery, Horowitz discloses in response to determining that a frame loss rate is less than a threshold value, determining a second interval for spacing apart reference frames that is less than a new interval (see Horowitz, at least at [0012]-[0015], [0047], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Nagai in view of Shi to include the limitations as taught by Horowitz for the advantage of more efficiently improving video delivery over a network in consideration of various network factors.
Regarding claim 10, Nagai in view of Shi, and further in view of Horowitz discloses generating a non-reference frame of digital content based on the new interval (see Horowitz, at least at [0012]-[0015], [0035]-[0036], and other related text); and
transmitting the non-reference frame of digital content to the client device for playback (see Horowitz, at least at [0012]-[0015], [0035]-[0036], and other related text).
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 CHENEA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9524 and whose email address is CHENEA.SMITH@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/CHENEA DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights