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 .
1. Claims 1-10 and 12 are presented for examination.
Claim 11 has been cancelled.
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features: “, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
3. Claims 1, 8, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The features “choosing, via the clients, a quality from available qualities defined by the maximum quality” in claim 1, “a quality chosen by the clients from available qualities defined by the maximum quality” in claim 8, “a quality chosen by the clients from available qualities defined by the maximum quality” in claim 9, and “the clients choosing a quality from available qualities defined by the maximum quality” in claim 12 are not fully supported by Applicant’s specification.
For purpose of examination, examiner has given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the feature “choosing, via the clients, a quality from available qualities defined by the maximum quality” recited in the claim(s) as “the m-ABR client…chooses the stream of appropriate quality from those available as described by Applicant’s specification in page 6 paragraph [0045]).
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.
4. Claims 1, 8, 9, and 12 are 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.
The feature “available qualities defined by the maximum quality in claims 1, 8, 9, and 12 renders the claims indefinite because it is not known how the maximum quality can define available qualities.
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.
5. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field, in view of Huber, US 2015/0012929 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Field teaches a method for transmitting a set of data streams through a telecommunications network (i.e., a method of facilitating content streaming via a communications network, abstract), the data streams being respectively transmitted to sets of clients (i.e., content that is delivered to many users simultaneously, page 3 lines 21-22), the method including an assignment of a maximum quality allocated to a data stream as a function of the number of clients in the set of clients (i.e., Field, page 8 lines 3-6, discloses provide/assign the most appropriate level of content quality…based on the size of audience (i.e., number of clients). Field, in page 8 lines 6-7, also discloses content quality may be qualified in relative terms (i.e., poor, medium, high/maximum).
Field does not explicitly teach the maximum quality being the maximum quality to which terminals connected to the corresponding client clients can have access, and the method further comprising the clients choosing a quality from available qualities defined by the maximum quality.
Huber teaches the maximum quality being the maximum quality to which terminals (i.e., client devices 141-144) connected to corresponding client (i.e., End Point Distribution Node 131, 132) can have access (i.e., the number of client devices receiving a particular stream and that are under node 300 is identified…proceed to 230 where the quality of the particular stream that is sent to the client devices is increased/assigned (step 230: Transmit Content at High/max Quality)(Fig. 2 and page 2 paragraph [0035]), and choosing, via the clients, a quality from available qualities defined by the maximum quality(i.e., Huber, in Figs 1 and 4a-4b, and page 3 paragraph [0048], discloses 50% of client devices (terminals) under node Y (client) start watching channel X…the quality that is allowed/available is increased/chosen… to… high/max. Huber, in page 1 paragraph [0009], also discloses the end point node (i.e., client) can control/choose streaming quality of the current mutticasted channel send to that node).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Field to implement the maximum quality being the maximum/high quality to which terminals connected to the corresponding client clients can have access, and choose, via the clients, a quality from available qualities, as taught by Huber for the reasons Huber expressly taught (i.e., more efficient use of available bandwidth in a communications network, page 1 paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Field teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein when the set of clients comprises at least two clients the stream is transmitted in multicast mode (i.e., determining that the requested content is to be made available by multicast may be based on the current number of the recipient devices…exceeding a predetermined number of recipient devices…obtain higher quality content via multicast than unicast, page 11 lines 20-26), and when the set of clients only comprises a single client, the stream is transmitted in unicast mode (this is contingent limitation which is optional).
Regarding claim 3, Field teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the assignment of a maximum quality comprises, for a multicast stream, configuring a source of the data streams for transmitting the data best corresponding to the maximum quality allocated to the data streams (i.e., determining that the requested content is to be made available by multicast may be based on the current number of the recipient devices…exceeding a predetermined number of recipient devices…obtain higher quality content via multicast than unicast, page 11 lines 20-26).
Regarding claim 4, Field teaches the method according to claim 1.
Field does not explicitly teach wherein said the maximum quality is higher when the number of clients is higher.
Huber teaches wherein said the maximum quality is higher when the number of clients is higher (i.e., the amount of users under node Y watching channel X increases…the quality is increased, page 3 paragraphs [0047]- [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Field to implement the maximum quality higher when the number of clients is higher, as taught by Huber, for the reason Huber expressly taught (i.e., more efficient use of available bandwidth in a communications network, page 1 paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 5, Field teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the assignment of a maximum quality comprises, for a unicast stream, modifying a service plan for the data stream in order that it only includes qualities less than or equal to said the maximum quality allocated to said the data stream (i.e., obtain higher quality content via multicast than unicast, page 11 lines 20-26).
Regarding claim 6, Field teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the maximum quality allocated to the data streams transmitted to the sets with the highest number of clients is not impacted (i.e., an audience of sufficient size…the client devices may obtain higher-quality content via multicast, page 11 paragraph 20-27).
Regarding claim 8, Field teaches a supervision device (MC) (i.e., content delivery mode server 204, Fig. 2) comprising a processor (i.e., the content delivery mode server 204 may include a computer system having a processing unit, page 9 lines 1-2) configured to assign a maximum quality allocated to a data stream as a function of the number of clients in a set of clients (i.e., Field, page 8 lines 3-6, discloses provide/assign the most appropriate level of content quality…based on the size of audience (i.e., number of clients),. Field, in page 8 lines 6-7, also discloses content quality may be qualified in relative terms (i.e., poor, medium, high/maximum)) to which the data stream is transmitted through said the telecommunications network (i.e., facilitating content streaming via a communications network, abstract).
Field does not explicitly teach the maximum quality being the maximum quality to which terminals connected to the corresponding client clients can have access, wherein the data stream is transmitted under a quality chosen by the clients from available qualities defined by the maximum quality.
Huber teaches the maximum quality being the maximum quality to which terminals (i.e., client devices 141-144) connected to the corresponding client (i.e., End Point Distribution Node 131) can have access (i.e., the number of client devices receiving a particular stream and that are under node 300 is identified…proceed to 230 where the quality of the particular stream that is sent to the client devices is increased (step 230: “Transmit Content at High Quality”)(Fig. 2 and page 2 paragraph [0035]), wherein the data stream is transmitted under a quality chosen by the clients from available qualities defined by the maximum quality (i.e., the end point node can control streaming quality sent to the node, page 1 paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Field to implement the maximum quality being the maximum/high quality to which terminals connected to the corresponding client clients can have access, wherein the data stream is transmitted under a quality chosen by the clients from available qualities defined by the maximum quality, as taught by Huber for the reasons Huber expressly taught (i.e., more efficient use of available bandwidth in a communications network, page 1 paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 9, Field teaches a system comprising a source (i.e., content source(s) (210) of the data stream and a supervision device (content delivery mode server 204) comprising a processor (i.e., in the content delivery mode server 204 , the processing unit is in data communication with memory, page 9 lines 9-11) configured to assign a maximum quality allocated to a data stream, as a function of the number of clients in a set of clients (i.e., Field, page 8 lines 3-6, discloses provide/assign the most appropriate level of content quality…based on the size of audience (i.e., number of clients). Field, in Fig. 2 and page 8 lines 6-7, also discloses content quality may be qualified in relative terms (i.e., poor, medium, high/maximum) to which the data stream is transmitted through the telecommunications network (i.e., facilitating content streaming via a communications network, abstract).
Field does not explicitly teach transmit to the clients a data stream under a quality chosen by the clients from available qualities defined by the maximum quality.
Huber teaches transmit to the clients a data stream under a quality chosen by the clients from available qualities defined by the maximum quality (i.e., the end point node can control/choose streaming quality sent to the node, page 1 paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Field to transmit to the clients a data stream under a quality chosen by the clients from available qualities defined by the maximum quality, as taught by Huber for the reasons Huber expressly taught (i.e., more efficient use of available bandwidth in a communications network, page 1 paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 10, Field teaches the system according to claim 9, wherein the source includes an interface intended to interoperate with the supervision device (MC) (i.e., the content delivery mode server 204 and the content sources 210 each network-connected to facilitate the content streaming …each have a network interface configured to communicatively coupled to the communication network 206, Fig. 2 and page 9 lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 12, Field teaches a non-transitory data storage medium on which a computer program is stored comprising at least one series of program code instructions for executing the method according to claim 1 is stored (i.e., a machine readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processing unit, estimate the size of the audience for the requested content, Fig. 2 and page 9 lines 1-8).
6. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field, in view of Huber as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (hereafter, “Zhu”), WO 2018103034 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Field teaches the method according to claim 1.
The combination of Field and Huber does not explicitly teach an assignment of a new maximum quality allocated to a data stream after a delay greater than a determined time threshold.
Zhu teaches an assignment of a new maximum quality allocated to a data stream after a delay greater than a determined time threshold (i.e., when the transmission delay of the first encoded image data is greater than the first threshold, the quality of the image may be reduced, page 7, 9th paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of teachings of Field and Huber to allocate a new maximum quality to a data stream after a delay greater than a determined time threshold, as taught by Zhu, in order to reduce transmission delay.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant’s argued in substance that
(A) An amended Figure 2 including arrows from the clients C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 and C6 to the server S, and these arrows represent the features of "clients choosing a quality from available qualities defined by the maximum quality" of Claim 1 and similar wording of Claims 8, 9 and 12.
As to point (A), examiner respectfully submits that arrows from the clients C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 and C6 to the server S in the amended Figure 2 do not show "clients choosing a quality from available qualities defined by the maximum quality."
(B) Applicant points to paragraph [0075] of the specification for supporting the feature “choosing, via the clients, a quality from available qualities defined by the maximum quality.”
As to point (B), Although paragraph [0075] of the specification discloses the maximum quality allocated to a data stream is the maximum quality to which terminals connected to the corresponding client can have access, and the terminals can automatically choose (and/or leave the user to choose manually) a quality from the qualities available for the received stream, it does not disclose choosing, via the clients, a quality from available qualities defined by the maximum quality as recited in the claim(s).
(C) Huber does not disclose choosing, via the clients, a quality from available qualities defined by the maximum quality.
As to point (C),
As shown in the Fig. 1 of the instant application below, C1, C2, and C3 are clients, and T11, T12, T1, and T3 are terminals.
PNG
media_image1.png
374
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In a Distribution tree disclosed in Fig. 1 of Huber below, endpoint distribution node(s) 131/132 is equivalent to client(s) C1/ C2/C3 of instant application.
PNG
media_image2.png
694
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Huber does disclose choosing, via the clients, a quality from available qualities defined by the maximum quality (i.e., Applicant’s specification, in page 6 paragraph [0045], discloses the client…chooses the stream of appropriate quality from those available. Huber, in Figs 1 and 4a-4b, and page 3 paragraph [0048], discloses 50% of client devices (terminals) under node Y (client) start watching channel X…the quality that is allowed/available is increased/chosen… to… high/max. Huber, in page 1 paragraph [0009], also discloses the end point node (i.e., client) can control/choose streaming quality of the current mutticasted channel send to that node).
(D) The rejection goes beyond a routine combination and would require impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
As to point (D), In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OANH DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Maxiflex Mon-Fri 6:00am-5:00pm.
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, Wing Chan can be reached at (571)272-7493. 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.
/OANH DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
