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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission dated 16 October 2025 has been received and made of record. Claims 1-3, 14-15, and 20 have been amended. Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 9 and 16 have been canceled. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome each and every U.S.C. 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 16 June 2025.
Response to Arguments
Although a new ground of rejection has been used to address additional limitations that have been added to claims 1, 14, and 15 a response is considered necessary for several of applicant's arguments since reference Bichot will continue to be used to meet several claimed limitations.
In response to Applicant’s argument stating that Bichot fails to show determining a first bit rate for receiving a first content from a first host device wirelessly coupled to the electronic accessory, determining a second bit rate for receiving a second content from a second host device selected from supported bit rates that are at or below a threshold bit rate of the sum of a measured first available bit rate BR1 on a communication path between the server CS1 and the client device and the measured second available bit rate BR2 on a communication path between the server CS2 and the client device minus a provision. ([0046-0054]) The communication path between the server CS1 and the client device includes a wireless cellular access network. The communication path between the server CS2 and the client device includes a different access network such as a DSL network. ([0019]) The client device receives the first part of the first chunk of the content from server CS1 at the RBR. ([0056]) The client device provides the content to a player output device for rendering the audio or video content. ([0059]) Bichot doesn’t explicitly show that the different access network may include a wireless network. Peter shows that a communication path between a destination device or electronic accessory which is streaming audio content may include a combination of wired, such as DSL, and wireless network, such as Wi-Fi. (Fig. 1B; [0034-0037])
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.
Claim 1-8, 10, 11, 14-15, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bichot et al. (European Patent EP 2537340), hereinafter Bichot, in view of Peters et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0081619), hereinafter Peters.
Regarding claim 1, Bichot shows
A method for adjusting bitrates by an electronic accessory, (i.e. client device) comprising: (Fig. 3b; [0058-0069]; i.e. A method performed by the client device. The client device including wireless interfaces for receiving content (i.e. first interface/second interface), a processor, and a memory storing instructions.)
determining a first bit rate (i.e. largest bit rate among the supported bit rates/requested bit rate RBR to request a first part of a chunk from server CS1) for receiving a first content ([0035-0037]; i.e. video or audio content) from a first host device ([0042]; i.e. server CS1) wirelessly coupled ([0019]; i.e. The server CS1 is connected to the electronic accessory via a first access network such as a wireless cellular network.), the first bit rate being at or below a threshold bit rate; (i.e. SUM of the measured first available bit rate BR1 on path P1 to server CS1 and the measured second available bit rate BR2 on path P2 to server CS2 minus a provision.) ([0046-0054])
determining a second bit rate (i.e. largest bit rate among the supported bit rates/requested bit rate RBR to request a second part of a chunk from server CS2) for receiving a second content ([0035-0037]; i.e. video or audio content) from a second host device (i.e. server CS2) the second bit rate being at or below the threshold bit rate; ; (i.e. SUM of the measured first available bit rate BR1 on path P1 to server CS1 and the measured second available bit rate BR2 on path P2 to server CS2 minus a provision.) ([0046-0054])
receiving the first content (i.e. first part of a first chunk of the video or audio content) from the first host device using the first bit rate; ([0056])
determining, based on the receiving of the first content from the first host device using the first bit rate, a third bit rate (i.e. next bit rate RBR for receiving a second part of a second chunk from server CS2) for receiving the second content from the second host device, (i.e. Current available bit rates are computed from the received chunk parts, for example the received first part of the first chunk from CS1. ([0067-0070]) The available bit rates are used to determine the requested bit rate RBR of the next chunk/third chunk from the server CS2.) the third bit rate being less than the second bit rate; and ([0069-0070]; [0017]; i.e. Lower bit rate chunk parts are requested when there is a network degradation. Therefore, the third bit rate chunk parts are requested at a lower rate than the second bit rate when there is a network degradation/bandwidth decrease.)
providing the first content for an output device (i.e. player) for visual or audible media. ([0059])
However, Bichot fails to show
a host device wirelessly coupled to the electronic accessory
Peters shows
determining a bit rate for receiving a content from a host device (Fig. 1B, 110; i.e. source device) wirelessly (i.e. via Wi-Fi) coupled to the electronic accessory (Fig. 1B; [0058]; [0034-0037]; i.e. A destination device is coupled to the source device via a combination of communication links, such as Wi-Fi and DSL. Thereby being wirelessly connected.)
Peters and Bichot are considered analogous art because they involve adaptive streaming of content. Bichot shows two different servers providing the content to the client device via different access networks. The two access networks may be cellular and DSL. Peters shows that a connection may include a combination of wired and wireless connections such as DSL and Wi-Fi. Therefore, 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 Bichot to incorporate the teachings of Peters wherein a host device wirelessly coupled to the electronic accessory. Doing so provides that the client device may communicate with the server without being hardwired to the router.
Regarding claim 2, Bichot in view of Peters shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Bichot in view of Peters further shows
The method of claim 1, wherein:
the first content is audio content; and (Bichot: [0037])
providing the first content comprises output of the audio content by a speaker. (Bichot: [0037]; i.e. The player would inherently contain a speaker to render the content.)
Regarding claim 3, Bichot in view of Peters shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Bichot in view of Peters further shows
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a second content (i.e. second part of a second chunk) from the second host device using the third bit rate; and (Bichot: [0053-0054])
providing the second content for the output device. (Bichot: [0059])
Regarding claim 4, Bichot in view of Peters shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Bichot in view of Peters further shows
The method of claim 1 wherein the first and second bit rates are both determined to be the threshold bit rate. (Bichot: [0053]; i.e. A supported bit rate for receiving the first content from CS1 and the second content from CS2 is equal to the threshold/SUM of the measured BR1 and BR2 minus a provision.)
Regarding claim 5, Bichot in view of Peters shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Bichot in view of Peters further shows
The method of claim 1 wherein the first and third bit rates added together equal a second threshold bit rate, the second threshold bit rate being greater than the first bit rate. (i.e. A threshold bit rate is the SUM of the measured first available bit rate BR1 on path P1 to server CS1 and the measured second available bit rate BR2 on path P2 to server CS2 minus a provision. (Bichot: [0046-0054]) A first bit could inherently be BR1 and a third bit rate could inherently be BR2. Therefore, when added together they equal a second threshold bit rate. A second threshold bit rate would inherently by greater than the first bit rate since the second threshold bit rate is the addition of the first bit rate and another bit rate.)
Regarding claim 6, Bichot in view of Peters shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Bichot in view of Peters further shows
The method of claim 1 further comprising determining, based on the first content no longer being provided, a restore bits rate for receiving the second content from the second host device, the restore bit rate being equal to the second bit rate. (i.e. When the client device stops processing a request for the first content to the CS1, the first content will no longer be provided. Based on it no longer being provided, the client will request the content from CS2. The content will be requested at the same requested bit rate RBR, thereby being equal to the second bit rate. In order to make the request for the content at the RBR it must first be determined. (Bichot: [0084]))
Regarding claim 7, Bichot in view of Peters shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Bichot in view of Peters further shows
The method of claim 1 wherein the first and second host devices are unicast devices. (Bichot: [0035]; i.e. The servers send the content chunks only to the client device based requests from the client device. Therefore, the servers are unicast devices.)
Regarding claim 8, Bichot in view of Peters shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Bichot in view of Peters further shows
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving the second content (i.e. second part of a second chunk of the video or audio content) from the second host device at the second bit rate; (Bichot: [0056])
determining, based on receiving the second content from the second host device at the second bit rate, instead of the third bit rate, a fourth bit rate for receiving the first content (i.e. first part of third chunk of the video or audio content) from the first host device, the fourth bit rate being less than the first bit rate; and (i.e. Current available bit rates are computed from the received chunk parts, for example the received first part of the second chunk from CS1 and the received second part of the second chunk from CS2. (Bichot: [0067-0070]) The available bit rates are used to determine the requested bit rate RBR of the next chunk/third chunk from the server CS1. Bit rates vary based on the observed rates form the previous chunks. The bit rates may go up or down. (Bichot: [0069-0070]; [0017]))
providing the second content. (Bichot: [0059])
Regarding claim 10, Bichot in view of Peters shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Bichot in view of Peters further shows
The method of claim 8, wherein the second and fourth bit rates added together equal a second threshold bit rate, the second threshold bit rate being greater than the second bit rate. (i.e. A threshold bit rate is the SUM of the measured first available bit rate BR1 on path P1 to server CS1 and the measured second available bit rate BR2 on path P2 to server CS2 minus a provision. (Bichot: [0046-0054]) A first bit could inherently be BR1 and a third bit rate could inherently be BR2. Therefore, when added together they equal a second threshold bit rate. A second threshold bit rate would inherently by greater than the first bit rate since the second threshold bit rate is the addition of the first bit rate and another bit rate.)
Regarding claim 11, Bichot in view of Peters shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Bichot in view of Peters further shows
The method of claim 1 wherein the determining of the first, the second, or the third bit rate includes determining a type of the content. (Bichot: [0052]; [0043]; i.e. In order to determine the requested bit rate it must be determined the type of content with particular supported bit rates.)
Regarding claim 14, this accessory claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 1 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 15, this media claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 1 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 18, this accessory claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 11 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 20, this accessory claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 3 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 21, Bichot in view of Peters shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Bichot in view of Peters further shows
The method of claim 1, wherein the output device is the electronic accessory. (Peters: [0034]; i.e. destination device) (Peters: Fig. 10, 1050; [0079]; i.e. The output device is integrated into the destination device.)
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 Bichot to incorporate the teachings of Peters wherein the output device is the electronic accessory so that the electronic device may provide the necessary output to the user.
Regarding claim 22, this accessory claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 21 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13, 17, and 19 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.
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 CAROLINE H JAHNIGE whose telephone number is (571)272-8450. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 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, Christopher Parry can be reached at (571) 272-8328. 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.
/CAROLINE H JAHNIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451