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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it is unclear which device is the control device and what command receives. The preload orchestrator (125 figure 1) receives a command to play video from a device (processors need a command to perform any task). After this the orchestrator (125) initializes each module (therefore there is communication between the orchestrator and every single module in the system) and manages the overall video playing (paragraph 23). Further the fetcher inspect its contents and the cache to determine the needed pictures, pictures that are needed next are retrieved from the storage 120 (paragraph 31-32). Finally, fetcher 175 has a predictor 192 that runs an algorithm that selects the picture that are needed next for playout (paragraph 31-32), meeting the claim language.
Lastly, this is a mapping of the components of the system the preload orchestrator is the centralized processor (125-figure 1); fetcher cache memory is the fetcher (175-figure 1); processor cache memory is the cache memory (185-figure 1) and the storage device is mass storage (120-figure 1). The examiner believed the mapping was very clear in the citations on the non-final office action, since the names are almost identical.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-9 and 14-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Garg et al., US 2013/0010197 in view of Witham, WO-2006080925-A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Garg discloses a playout device for a broadcast production system comprising a storage device for video streams and a control device for receiving input from a user for selecting a stored video stream to be played out and for selecting a replay speed and replay direction for the played out video stream (figure 4-5, paragraph 45), wherein the control device translates the user input into control commands to set corresponding playout parameters for the playout device (paragraph 83), wherein the playout device comprises
a fetcher to request from the storage device images of the selected stored video stream (figure 4, paragraph 83-85);
a processor to process the images (figure 4, paragraph 83-85);
a fetcher cache memory to store a plurality of the images for the processor (figure 4, paragraph 83-85); and
a processor cache memory to store at least one processed image for output by the playout device (figure 5, paragraph 52, 58 and 140-141).
Garg is silent about a preload orchestrator to receive the control commands from the control device; generate inspect signals for the fetcher cache memory and the processor cache memory to determine the contents therein; send command signals to the fetcher as a function of the determined contents of the fetcher cache memory to request images from the storage device, which are likely to be needed next by the processor; and send command signals to the processor as a function of the determined contents of the processor cache memory to request from the processor to process images which are played out next.
In an analogous art, Witham discloses a preload orchestrator (125 figure 1) to receive the control commands from the control device (orchestrator receives a command from a control device to play video, orchestrator further initializes (signals) each module and manages the overall video playing (paragraph 23);
generate inspect signals for the fetcher (175) cache memory and the processor cache (185) memory to determine the contents therein (fetcher inspect its contents and the cache to determine the needed pictures, pictures that are needed next are retrieved from the storage 120; paragraph 31-32);
send command signals to the fetcher as a function of the determined contents of the fetcher cache memory to request images from the storage device, which are likely to be needed next by the processor (fetcher 175 has a predictor 192 that runs an algorithm that selects the picture that are needed next for playout, paragraph 31-32) ; and
send command signals to the processor as a function of the determined contents of the processor cache memory to request from the processor to process images which are played out next (fetcher 175 has a predictor 192 that runs an algorithm that selects the picture that are needed next figure 1, paragraph 23-24, 28, 30, 39 and 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Garg’s device with the teachings of Witham. The motivation would have been to have the images ready when needed for the benefit of having a quick response when processing the media.
Regarding claim 2, Garg and Whitham disclose the playout device according to claim 1, wherein the fetcher cache memory and the processor cache memory operate at different sampling rates (Garg figure 16, paragraph 50 and 104-105).
Regarding claim 4, Garg and Whitham disclose the playout device according to claim 1, wherein the fetcher cache memory is located in a signal flow direction upstream from the processor cache memory (Garg figure 4-5, paragraph 52 and 83).
Regarding claim 5, Garg and Whitham disclose the playout device according to claim 1, wherein the processor comprises a plurality of processing elements, wherein each processing element performs an elementary service providing one step of a desired processing functionality, wherein a concatenation of elementary services forms a processing pipeline implementing the desired processing functionality, and wherein each processing element is associated with its own processing cache memory (Garg figure 5, paragraph 52-58).
Regarding claim 6, Garg and Whitham disclose the playout device according to claim 5, further comprising an input of the processing pipeline to receive data from the storage device and an output of the processing pipeline for outputting processed video data, wherein the data flow from the input to the output of the processing pipeline defines a signal flow direction, wherein each processing cache memory is arranged downstream in signal flow direction relative to its associated processing element (Garg figure 5, paragraph 52-58).
Regarding claim 7, Garg and Whitham disclose the playout device according to claim 6, wherein a first processing element in the signal flow direction is configured to request data from the fetcher cache memory (Garg figure 5, paragraph 52-58).
Regarding claim 8, Garg and Whitham disclose the playout device according to claim 7, wherein each processing element succeeding the first processing element in the signal flow direction is configured to request data from a next upstream processing cache memory (Garg figure 5, paragraph 52-58).
Regarding claim 9, Garg discloses a method for playout of video streams by a playout device according to claim 1, the method comprising
preloading in the fetcher cache memory images of a stored video stream from the storage device, wherein the stored video stream has a first frame rate (figure 16, paragraph 50 and 104-105); and
generating an output video stream including the requested stored video stream at a predetermined output frame rate for playout, wherein the output frame rate is different from or equal to the first frame rate (figure 16, paragraph 50 and 104-105).
Garg is silent about processing the images from the fetcher cache memory in the processor; storing the processed images in the processor cache memory; executing an algorithm to generate inspect signals for the fetcher cache memory and the processor cache memories to determine their contents; sending command signals to the fetcher as a function of the determined contents of the fetcher cache memory to request images from the storage device, which are likely to be needed next by the processor; and sending command signals to the processor as a function of the determined contents of the processor cache memory to request from the processor to process images which are played out next.
In an analogous art, Witham discloses processing the images from the fetcher cache memory in the processor (paragraph 22-23); storing the processed images in the processor cache memory (paragraph 21); executing an algorithm to generate inspect signals for the fetcher cache memory and the processor cache memories to determine their contents (fetcher inspect its contents and the cache to determine the needed pictures, pictures that are needed next are retrieved from the storage 120; paragraph 31-32); sending command signals to the fetcher as a function of the determined contents of the fetcher cache memory to request images from the storage device, which are likely to be needed next by the processor (fetcher 175 has a predictor 192 that runs an algorithm that selects the picture that are needed next for playout, paragraph 31-32); sending command signals to the processor as a function of the determined contents of the processor cache memory to request from the processor to process images which are played out next (fetcher 175 has a predictor 192 that runs an algorithm that selects the picture that are needed next figure 1, paragraph 23-24, 28, 30, 39 and 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Garg’s method with the teachings of Witham. The motivation would have been to have the images ready when needed for the benefit of having a quick response when processing the media.
Regarding claim 14, Garg and Whitham disclose the method according to claim 9, further comprising preloading in the fetcher cache memory one or several images of the stored video stream preceding and succeeding a currently displayed image of the stored video stream in case the replay of the stored video stream is paused (Garg paragraph 104-106).
Regarding claim 15, Garg and Whitham disclose the method according to claim 9, further comprising repeating images of the stored video stream to adapt a flow of images of the stored video stream at the first frame rate to the output frame rate (Garg paragraph 104-106).
Regarding claim 16, Garg and Whitham disclose the method according to claim 9, further comprising skipping images of the stored video stream to adapt a flow of images of the stored video stream at the first frame rate to the output frame rate (Garg paragraph 104-106).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Garg in view of Whitham in view of Barnich, EP-3355587-A1.
Regarding claim 10, Garg and Whitham disclose the method according to claim 9.
Garg and Whitham are silent about predicting images that are needed next in the generated output video stream.
In an analogous art, Barnich discloses predicting images that are needed next in the generated output video stream (figure 3-4, paragraph 44 and 52-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Garg and Whitham’s method with the teachings of Barnich. The motivation would have been to have the images ready when needed for the benefit of having a quick response when processing the media.
Regarding claim 11, Garg, Whitham and Barnich disclose the method according to claim 10, further comprising preloading the predicted images into the fetcher cache memory (Garg figure 5, paragraph 45, 52, 58, 83, 85 and 140-141; Barnich figure 3-4, paragraph 44 and 52-55).
Regarding claim 12, Garg, Whitham and Barnich disclose the method according to claim 10, further comprising processing the predicted images to be loaded into the processing cache memory (Garg figure 5, paragraph 45, 52, 58, 83, 85 and 140-141; Barnich figure 3-4, paragraph 44 and 52-55).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Garg in view of Whitham in view of Hill, US 6,005,6000.
Regarding claim 13, Garg and Whitham disclose the method according to claim 9.
Garg and Whitham are silent about keeping preloaded images in the fetcher cache memory that have not yet been utilized in the composed output video stream.
In an analogous art, Hill discloses keeping preloaded images in the fetcher cache memory that have not yet been utilized in the composed output video stream (figure 3-4, paragraph 44 and 52-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Garg and Whitham’s method with the teachings of Hill. The motivation would have been to have the images ready when needed for the benefit of having a quick response when processing the media.
Conclusion
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421