Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/911,615

REDUNDANT AND SCALABLE AUDIO ENCODING AND TRANSCODING

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Oct 10, 2024
Examiner
VILLENA, MARK
Art Unit
2658
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Cisco Technology Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 10m
Est. Remaining
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allowance Rate
351 granted / 495 resolved
+8.9% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
510
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
§103
52.2%
+12.2% vs TC avg
§102
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
§112
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 495 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
CTNF 18/911,615 CTNF 86790 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings were submitted on 10/10/2024. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1-6 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Soman et al. (US 20220337888 A1) . Regarding claims 1, 12, and 18 , Soman teaches: “receiving a mixed-bitrate encoded audio packet that includes encoding vectors representative of a quantized current audio frame and quantized past audio frames, wherein the encoding vectors include a current high-bitrate encoding vector having a high encoding bitrate and past low-bitrate encoding vectors having low encoding bitrates that are less than the high encoding bitrate” (par. 0081; ‘The segmenter module [208C] is configured to receive the uniform segments of content from the encoder [204B] of the content encoding server [204] encoded at different bitrates and create the streams of the audio-visual data based on the virtual manifest created by the manifest module [208B].’); “selecting a subset of the encoding vectors” (par. 0081; ‘The segmenter module [208C] of the content transmission server [208] dynamically modifies at least one of a segment length and a segment size for the one or more segments based on the determined the target segment length and the target segment size, in an event the expected efficiency is above a pre-defined threshold.’); “repacketizing the subset of the encoding vectors into a transcoded audio packet that has different encoding bitrates from the mixed-bitrate encoded audio packet” (par. 0151; ‘Further, the segmenter module [208C] may dynamically and virtually combine the uniform size segments of 2 MB encoded at different bit rates to form a stream of data to be transferred.’); and “transmitting the transcoded audio packet over a network link” (par. 0143; ‘The transceiver [208A] of the content transmission server [208] delivers the content to the at least one user device [202] based on the at least one target failsafe rendition.’). Regarding claims 2 (dep. on claim 1), 13 (dep. on claim 12), and 19 (dep. on claim 18) , Soman further teaches: “receiving includes receiving the mixed-bitrate encoded audio packet to further include a current low-bitrate encoding vector having a low encoding bitrate that is less than the high encoding bitrate” (par. 0151; ‘Further, the segmenter module [208C] may dynamically and virtually combine the uniform size segments of 2 MB encoded at different bit rates to form a stream of data to be transferred.’). Regarding claims 3 (dep. on claim 1), 14 (dep. on claim 12), and 20 (dep. on claim 18) , Soman further teaches: “the current high-bitrate encoding vector includes q codeword indices representative of the high encoding bitrate, and the past low-bitrate encoding vectors each includes less than q codeword indices representative of the low encoding bitrates” (par. 0059; ‘As used herein, a “first parameters” may comprise of the information about the user device [202] to which the audio-visual content is being transmitted, the bit rate at which the segments are being transmitted, the time taken by the playback buffer to download a single segment, the segment size in respect of all segments of the an audio-visual content delivery session, the size of the data in every segment, a network type (for example, network is a cellular network, e.g. 3G, 4G, 5G, or a Wi-Fi network), the playback buffer information of the user device [102].’ Q codeword indices are used in 4G and 5G networks.). Regarding claims 4 (dep. on claim 1) and 15 (dep. on claim 12) , Soman further teaches: “the low encoding bitrates of the past low-bitrate encoding vectors vary across the past low-bitrate encoding vectors” (par. 0151; ‘Further, the segmenter module [208C] may dynamically and virtually combine the uniform size segments of 2 MB encoded at different bit rates to form a stream of data to be transferred.’). Regarding claims 5 (dep. on claim 4) and 16 (dep. on claim 15) , Soman further teaches: “the low encoding bitrates decrease as time offsets increase between the current high-bitrate encoding vector and the past low-bitrate encoding vectors” (par. 0150; ‘That is, the same data has 4 segments of 2 MB size each with bitrates 1.5 mbps, 4 mbps, 6 mbps and 13 mbps (as shown).’). Regarding claims 6 (dep. on claim 1) and 17 (dep. on claim 12) , Soman further teaches: “determining link parameters for the network link, wherein selecting includes selecting the subset based on the link parameters” (par. 0151; ‘Thereafter, upon receipt of the one or more parameters from the at least one user device [202] by the content transmission server [208], the manifest module [208B] of the content transmission server [208] dynamically creates a virtual manifest for transfer of the audio-visual data encoded at different bitrates.’) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 7-11 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 7 (dep. on claim 6) , Soman does not expressly teach packet-loss rate, as in “the link parameters indicate a bandwidth and a packet-loss rate; and selecting includes selecting the subset based on the bandwidth and the packet-loss rate.” While there are prior art, such as Jensen et al. (US 20200194029 A1), that teach speech encoder and decoder systems that provide high-quality voice and audio over insufficient bandwidth or high packet loss rates (see Jensen: par. 0058), the prior art, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, inter alia, “selecting includes selecting the subset based on the bandwidth and the packet-loss rate.” Claims 8-10 are dependent upon objected claim 7. Regarding claim 11 (dep. on claim 6) , the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach “the link parameters indicate a packet-loss burst length; and selecting increases or decreases a number of the encoding vectors in the subset in correspondence with increases or decreases in the packet-loss burst length.” Conclusion Other pertinent prior art are cited in the PTO-892 for the applicant's consideration. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK VILLENA whose telephone number is (571)270-3191. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6pm EST Monday through Friday. 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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. 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. MARK . VILLENA Examiner Art Unit 2658 /MARK VILLENA/Examiner, Art Unit 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/911,615 Page 2 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/911,615 Page 3 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/911,615 Page 4 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/911,615 Page 5 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/911,615 Page 6 Art Unit: 2658 Application/Control Number: 18/911,615 Page 7 Art Unit: 2658
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 10, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102
Aug 04, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 04, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12705438
HALLUCINATION DETECTION VIA MULTILINGUAL PROMPT
2y 4m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12700404
VOICE COMMAND SELECTION BASED ON CONTEXT INFORMATION
3y 3m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12700408
PROVIDING NOTIFICATIONS WITH A DIGITAL ASSISTANT
2y 9m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12671762
REMOTE CONTROL OF A WEB BROWSER
2y 8m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12670910
INNER SPEECH PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND QUANTIFICATION
2y 8m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+15.2%)
3y 8m (~1y 10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 495 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month