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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2, line 4 ends with “accelerated.” which is indefinite. The claim is being examined as though the term should read “accelerated playback.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation “control the transmission bitrate of the video data to be transmitted to the client terminal based on the result of the determination in regard to the playback speed of the accelerated playback.” is a repeated recitation of the same feature in parent claim 2 and does not further limit the feature. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 2, 5-8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Li, US PGPub 2016/0294910 in view of Edlund.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses in figure 1 a data relay apparatus (source and edge routers 114 and 116) arranged between a client terminal (client 106) and a distribution server (video server 102) for distributing video data and configured to transmit the video data distributed from the distribution server to the client terminal, the data relay apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: receive uploaded data to be transmitted from the client terminal to the distribution server (figure 5, step 504, paragraph 41), and determine whether or not accelerated playback of the video data is being performed at the client terminal (step 504, paragraph 41), and determine a playback speed of the accelerated playback performed at the client terminal in response to determining that the accelerated playback of the video data is being performed at the client terminal (step 506, paragraph 42). Li does not disclose determine, based on a data size of the uploaded data, whether the uploaded data is request data for requesting the video data or acknowledgement data for notifying that the video data has been received. Edlund discloses determine, based on a data size of the uploaded data, whether the uploaded data is request data for requesting the video data or acknowledgement data for notifying that the video data has been received (paragraphs 53-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the invention of Li per the teachings of Edlund for the purpose of increasing computational efficiency during video playback.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Li and Edlund discloses the data relay apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to control a transmission bitrate of the video data to be transmitted to the client terminal based on a result of the determination in regard to the accelerated (Li, step 506)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li and Edlund discloses the data relay apparatus according to claim 2, the data relay apparatus according to wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to control the transmission bitrate of the video data to be transmitted to the client terminal based on the result of the determination in regard to the playback speed of the accelerated playback (Li, step 506)
Regarding claim 6, a distribution system comprising: a client terminal; a distribution server configured to distribute video data; and a data relay apparatus according to claim 1 is met by the combination of Li and Edlund as detailed in the rationale for rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claimed data relay method mirrors the data relay apparatus of claim 1 and accordingly it is rejected using the rationale as that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium mirrors the data relay apparatus of claim 1 and method claim 7 and accordingly it is rejected using the rationale as that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Li and Mukaiyachi discloses controlling a transmission bitrate of the video data to be transmitted to the client terminal based on a result of the determining whether or not accelerated playback of the video data is being performed at the client terminal (Li, figure 5, steps 504 and 506).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Li and Mukaiyachi discloses the data relay method according to claim 7, further comprising: controlling the transmission bitrate of the video data to be transmitted to the client terminal based on a result of the determining the playback speed of the accelerated playback (Li, figure 5, step 506)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art references fail to teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine whether or not the accelerated playback of the video data is being performed at the client terminal based on a transmission interval of the determined request data as required by claims 10 and 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rajasekar, US PGPub 2021/0385168; Bao, US PGPub 2017/0270965.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian T Pendleton whose telephone number is (571)272-7527. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30 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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at (571) 272-1667. 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.
Brian T. Pendleton
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/Brian T Pendleton/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights