DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10 MARCH 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s current amendment (dated 10 MARCH 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference(s) and/or citations being used in the current 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.
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, 4-5, 8-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahrer et al., US 2010/0023842 in view of Wee et al., US 2003/0070081 and further in view of Ho et al., US 9,992,088 and Badr et al., US 2017/0279558.
Regarding claim 1, Rahrer discloses a processor (with at least controller; page 3, paragraph 33) to:
identify, from a sequence of network packets corresponding to an encoded video stream, a subset of network packets of the encoded video stream (system can receive media stream, segment the stream into sequence(s) of packets, and can then determine/identify a block, i.e. subset, of media packets for error correction processing; page 4, paragraphs 36-37);
determine a transmission order for the sequence of network packets based at least on the subset of network packets and one or more error correction packets corresponding to the subset of network packets (based on error correction packets being interleaved into the block, i.e. subset relating to a sequence, of media packets, system can determine the transmission order such that a rightmost number in each packet represents a packet transmission order; page 6, paragraphs 46-49, and wherein prior/next media segment packet(s) can be prior/next in transmission sequence for the at least one subset/block with the error correction; page 4, paragraph 36); and
transmit the sequence of network packets to a receiver client device according to the transmission order (transmission of the packets according to the transmission order; page 4, paragraph 37, and page 6, paragraphs 46-49, and again prior/next media segment packet(s) can be prior/next in transmission sequence for the at least one subset/block with the error correction; page 4, paragraph 36).
While Rahrer does also disclose the one or more error correction packets correspond to the subset of network packets (error correction packets related to at least a specific amount of media packets, i.e. subset; page 4, paragraph 37), such that the one or more error correction packets are ordered in relation to other packets in the transmission order, followed by at least one of the subset of network packets, and followed by other packets of the sequence of network packets (transmission order such that particular packets and/or error correction packets can be interleaved/intermixed, i.e. in an order related to at least other packets of the block/subset and/or others of network/block packets, and followed by other ones of the block/subset of packets and/or others of network/block packets; page 4, paragraph 37, and page 6, paragraphs 46-49, and Fig. 9, and Examiner’s Note: the claimed “followed by other packets of the sequence” can be interpreted to include other packets from the subset or other error correction packets, as the “packets of the sequence” includes those types of packets and the “other” packets are not specified to be any particular kind), as well as network packets of the subset of network packets within the sequence of network packets (sequence(s) of packets, and can then determine/identify a block, i.e. subset, of media packets; page 4, paragraphs 36-37), Rahrer does not explicitly disclose a processor comprising one or more circuits to perform operations;
corresponding to a video frame of video;
a subset of packets corresponding to a region of a video frame; and
one or more packets of a sequence of network packets are ordered first in the transmission order, such that a distance between at least two network packets within the sequence of network packets satisfies a loss length metric.
In a related art, Wee does disclose a processor comprising one or more circuits to perform operations (including at least a processor, and other hardware/circuits; page 4, paragraphs 52, 55, and 57);
corresponding to a video frame of video (relating to frame(s) of the video; page 5, paragraph 59); and
packets corresponding to a region of a video frame (media divided into regions of a frame; page 5, paragraph 61, and wherein with packetization of the data; page 6, paragraph 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Rahrer and Wee by allowing certain circuitry to be utilized with the already present system of Rahrer, as well as transmission of media including frames of content from specific areas/regions of frames, in order to provide an improved system and method for allowing media data to be efficiently streamed to a variety of receiving nodes having different capabilities and characteristics (Wee; page 2, paragraph 14).
Rahrer in view of Wee does not explicitly disclose one or more packets of a sequence of network packets are ordered first in the transmission order, such that a distance between at least two network packets within the sequence of network packets satisfies a loss length metric.
In a related art, Ho does disclose one or more packets of a sequence of network packets are ordered first in the transmission order, followed by at least one of other network packets (repair packets, i.e. FEC, are queued and sent before the other packets in the transmission ordering; col. 22, lines 34-53, and col. 22, line 62 – col. 23, line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Rahrer, Wee, and Ho by allowing certain packet transmission ordering to be utilized with the already provided ordering in Rahrer and Wee, in order to provide an improved system and method that can reliably deliver data packets faster but not at the expense of fairness (Ho; col. 2, lines 42-44).
Rahrer in view of Wee and Ho does not explicitly disclose network packets, such that a distance between at least two network packets within a sequence of network packets satisfies a loss length metric.
In a related art, Badr does disclose network packets, such that a distance between at least two network packets within a sequence of network packets satisfies a loss length metric (using a metric/parameter relating to at least burst loss length, system can adjust gap, i.e. distance, between actual transmission packets, i.e. at least two, in a sequence of packets, in order to satisfy/mitigate based on the loss metric/parameter; page 3, paragraphs 34 and 45, and page 5, paragraphs 89-92).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Rahrer, Wee, Ho, and Badr, by allowing certain packet transmission operations to be utilized with the already provided operations and ordering of Rahrer in view of Wee and Ho, in order to provide an improved system and method for forward error correction coding that reduces degradations when packet losses occur over a communication network (Badr; page 1, paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Rahrer in view of Wee, Ho, and Badr discloses the one or more circuits are to generate the one or more error correction packets based at least on the encoded video stream for inclusion in the sequence of network packets (Rahrer; can generate the error correction packets based on the media stream; page 4, paragraph 37, and Wee; including at least a processor, and other hardware/circuits; page 4, paragraphs 52, 55, and 57).
Regarding claim 5, Rahrer in view of Wee, Ho, and Badr discloses the one or more circuits are to determine the transmission order for the sequence of network packets further based at least on a number of the one or more error correction packets (Rahrer; based on the particular number of error correction packets, i.e. such as for example 16 FEC packets, system will then determine the transmission ordering of the packets; page 4, paragraph 37, and page 6, paragraphs 46-49, and Wee; including at least a processor, and other hardware/circuits; page 4, paragraphs 52, 55, and 57).
Regarding claim 8, Rahrer in view of Wee, Ho, and Badr discloses the one or more circuits are to determine the transmission order further based at least on a length of the sequence of network packets (Rahrer; the ordering of the packets is at least based on the size, i.e. length, of the block of the media packets; page 4, paragraph 37, and Fig. 9, and wherein with a particular segmented media, i.e. with specific length and/or number of segments; page 4, paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 9, Rahrer in view of Wee, Ho, and Badr discloses the one or more circuits are to determine the transmission order such that one or more of the subset of network packets are separated by one or more other packets of the sequence of network packets (Rahrer; transmission order such that particular packets and/or error correction packets can be interleaved/intermixed, i.e. prior to/between at least other packets; page 4, paragraph 37, and page 6, paragraphs 46-49, and Fig. 9, and wherein with various segments for the media, such that prior/next media segment packet(s) can be prior/next in transmission sequence for the at least one subset with the error correction; page 4, paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 10, Rahrer in view of Wee, Ho, and Badr discloses the one or more circuits are to determine a number of the one or more other packets according to a number of the subset of network packets (Rahrer; transmission order such that particular packets and/or error correction packets can be interleaved/intermixed, i.e. prior to/between at least other packets, and wherein based on a number of packets in the particular block/subset; page 4, paragraph 37, and page 6, paragraphs 46-49, and Fig. 9, such that prior/next media segment packet(s) can be prior/next in transmission sequence for the at least one subset with the error correction; page 4, paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 11, Rahrer in view of Wee, Ho, and Badr discloses the processor is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 4D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conversational AI operations; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more language models; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (Rahrer; implemented in at least a MHE/MSO, i.e. at least partially in a data type center and/or edge type service/node; Fig. 3, and page 2, paragraph 14, and page 3, paragraph 33, and Wee; implemented using a variety of systems, including networked computer systems, devices/nodes, etc. i.e. cloud computing, edge nodes/devices, and/or data type centers/servers; page 4, paragraph 54).
Claim 12, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
one or more processing units (Wee; including at least a processor, and other hardware/circuits; page 4, paragraphs 52, 55, and 57); and
one or more memory units storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processing units, cause the one or more processing units to execute operations (Wee; with memory including executable instructions; page 4, paragraph 57, and page 10, paragraph 112).
Claim 13, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 11.
Claim 14, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Claim 15, which discloses a processor/system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claim 18, which discloses a processor/system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 8.
Claim 19, which discloses a processor/system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 9.
Claim 20, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 1 and 12.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahrer et al., US 2010/0023842 in view of Wee et al., US 2003/0070081, Ho et al., US 9,992,088, and Badr et al., US 2017/0279558, and further in view of Bjorkengren et al., US 2010/0189257.
Regarding claim 2, Rahrer in view of Wee, Ho, and Badr discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as the one or more circuits are to perform operations (Wee; including at least a processor, and other hardware/circuits; page 4, paragraphs 52, 55, and 57), and the sequence of network packets according to the transmission order prior to the sequence of network packets being used for transmission (Rahrer; operations performed and the transmission order determined prior to transmission; page 6, paragraph 49), and encoding (Rahrer; page 3, paragraph 28, and page 4, paragraph 36).
Rahrer in view of Wee, Ho, and Badr does not explicitly disclose reordering one or more payloads of a sequence of packets according to an order prior to other operations.
In a related art, Bjorkengren does disclose reordering one or more payloads of a sequence of packets according to an order prior to other operations (shuffling/reordering the payloads, and with particular transmission sequence identifiers; page 3, paragraph 27, and based on at least the sequence numbers/orders; page 1, paragraph 5, and wherein can be performed prior to transmission; page 3, paragraphs 27-28, and can also be performed prior to encoding into RTP packets for transmission; page 3, paragraph 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Rahrer, Wee, Ho, Badr, and Bjorkengren by allowing specific orderings of sequences/content to be changed, in order to provide an improved system and method for shuffling of multimedia packets in a streaming transmission to prevent unauthorized use of the multimedia data and reduce computation burdens (Bjorkengren; page 1, paragraphs 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, Rahrer in view of Wee, Ho, and Badr discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as the one or more circuits are to perform operations (Wee; including at least a processor, and other hardware/circuits; page 4, paragraphs 52, 55, and 57), and the sequence of network packets according to the transmission order prior to transmitting the sequence of network packets to the receiver client device (Rahrer; operations performed and the transmission order determined prior to transmission; page 6, paragraph 49).
Rahrer in view of Wee, Ho, and Badr does not explicitly disclose reordering one or more packets of a sequence of packets according to an order prior to transmission.
In a related art, Bjorkengren does disclose reordering one or more packets of a sequence of packets according to an order prior to transmission (shuffling/reordering, and based on particular transmission sequence numbers/order; page 4, paragraph 41, and with packets and prior to transmission; Fig. 4, elements 430 and 450, and can also be performed prior to encoding into RTP packets for transmission; page 3, paragraph 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Rahrer, Wee, Ho, Badr, and Bjorkengren by allowing specific orderings of sequences/content to be changed, in order to provide an improved system and method for shuffling of multimedia packets in a streaming transmission to prevent unauthorized use of the multimedia data and reduce computation burdens (Bjorkengren; page 1, paragraphs 1 and 4).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahrer et al., US 2010/0023842 in view of Wee et al., US 2003/0070081, Ho et al., US 9,992,088, and Badr et al., US 2017/0279558, and further in view of Nazuka et al., US 10,587,841.
Regarding claim 7, Rahrer in view of Wee, Ho, and Badr discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as the one or more circuits are to determine the transmission order such that a first set of packets is interleaved with a second set of packets (Rahrer; ordering based on interleaving various packets, i.e. at least first/second sets of packets; page 6, paragraphs 46-49, and Fig. 9, and Wee; including at least a processor, and other hardware/circuits; page 4, paragraphs 52, 55, and 57).
Rahrer in view of Wee, Ho, and Badr does not explicitly disclose data corresponding to a first unprioritized region of a video frame, and data corresponding to a second unprioritized region of the video frame.
In a related art, Nazuka does disclose data corresponding to a first unprioritized region of a video frame, and data corresponding to a second unprioritized region of the video frame (video frame can contain areas, i.e. first/second regions, which correspond to non-priority regions; col. 9, lines 28-32, and col. 10, lines 26-29, and Fig. 5, see Sn on left side/region of frame and Sn on right side/region of frame).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Rahrer, Wee, Ho, Badr, and Nazuka by allowing priorities to be utilized when transmitting certain data, in order to provide an improved system and method for video transmission that limits an increase in the communication load that occurs when video data is transmitted (Nazuka; col. 1, lines 34-37).
Claim 17, which discloses a processor/system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights