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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/27/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
3. 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 , 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) 1 does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a method claim 1 is not a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The claim 1 recites the method including an assignment…; and comprising the clients. The claimed elements: an assignment… and the clients…, of claim 1 are not a series of actual steps or acts, and therefore, the method claim 1 does not qualify as a statutory process.
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.
5. 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 “clients choosing 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.
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.
6. 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.
7. 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)).
to which said the data stream is transmitted (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, 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 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]), and the clients choosing a quality from available qualities defined by the maximum quality (i.e., Huber, in page 3 paragraph [0037], discloses distribution node 300 could take place the place of endpoint distribution nodes 131 and 132 comprising a quality module 36. Huber, in Figs 1 and 3 and page 3 paragraph [0039], discloses the quality module 360 is arranged to increase/choose the stream quality of content when a plurality of clients greater than a threshold value stream the same content).
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 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).
8. 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
9. Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant’s argued in substance that
(A) the client(s) of Huber have no possibility of choosing the quality under which the stream is transmitted.
As to point (A), Huber does have possibility of choosing the quality under which the stream is transmitted ((i.e., the end point node(s) 131/132 can control/choose streaming quality sent to the node, Fig. 1 and page 1 paragraph [0009]).
10. 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 Maxi flex 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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571) 272-4170. 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
Prosecution Insights