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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Referring to Applicant’s argument on pages 2-3 of Applicant’s Remarks alleging Wang fails to disclose transcoding, using the first transcoding model, the first subpart of the content to generate a first transcoded subpart” and “transcoding, using the second transcoding model, the second subpart of the content to generate a second transcoded subpart” because Wang fails to disclose these limitations due to Wang purportedly only using a single model for transcoding content, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The cited disclosure of Hosur specifically teaches the use of a transcoding model in order to transcode two subparts (i.e., audio and video parts) of the same content, as seen in the previous rejection. Hosur simply lacks the explicit teaching of using more than one transcoding model to transcode two pieces of content. Wang is not cited to teach the limitation quoted by Applicant. Wang is cited to disclose the known concept of using different transcoding models for different instances of content. Wang further discloses using different transcoding models for different versions (i.e., resolutions) of the same content in the following paragraph (0095). Hosur also considers the resolution as an appropriate factor to consider for the model to transcode the video, wherein the sample rate of the audio is also listed as an appropriate factor (para. 0073). The Examiner maintains that a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the teaching of Wang disclosing the concept of using multiple transcoding models for different pieces of content or for different subparts/resolutions of the same content with the transcoding model factors of video resolution and audio sample rate system of Hosur to provide the ability to produce, such as by training, based on a data set, learning models to predict transcoding quality for sets of user generated video content at multiple resolutions, and the ability to use the produced models, such as for inference, to optimize dynamic parameter selection for quality-normalized video transcoding as set forth by Wang, and in applying it to Hosur, find it obvious to apply the same ability using multiple learning models to predict transcoding quality for the subparts of content at multiple sample rates.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosur et al (hereinafter Hosur) US 20100185776 in view of Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) US 20230104270.
Referring to claim 1, Hosur discloses a system comprising:
at least one processor(see published claim 9); and
memory, operatively connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a set of operations (see Paragraph 0015 and published claim 9), the set of operations comprising:
receiving, from a node of a content distribution network (CDN), content and a transcoding recipe indicating a transcoding model for a first subpart of the content and a second subpart of the content (see Fig. 1 and Paragraphs 0015-0016, 0020, 0025-0026, 0037, 0040, 0071-0073 for disclosing a transcoder 30 receives, from a node 20 of a content distribution network 10, source content and a transcoding recipe/client-requested target format indicating a model to transcode a first and second subparts (target video and audio formats for the respective video and audio subparts of the content));
transcoding, using the transcoding model, the first subpart of the content to generate a first transcoded subpart, and transcoding, the second subpart of the content to generate a second transcoded subpart (see Paragraphs 0071-0073 and 0084 for disclosing the video and audio of the original content are transcoded into the client-requested target format using respective video and audio transcoding models); and
providing, to a client device, transcoded content comprising the first transcoded subpart and the second transcoded subpart (see Paragraphs 0087-0088 for disclosing the transcoded video and audio are transmitted to the client device).
Hosur is unclear as to using multiple transcoding models.
Wang discloses using multiple transcoding models to transcode different aspects of video content (see Paragraphs 0094-0095, noting the analysis provided in the Response to Arguments section above).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the multiple transcoding models of Wang with the model-based video and audio transcoding system of Hosur in order to the ability to produce, such as by training, based on a data set, learning models to predict transcoding quality for sets of user generated video content at multiple resolutions, and the ability to use the produced models, such as for inference, to optimize dynamic parameter selection for quality-normalized video transcoding (see Wang, Paragraph 0040).
Referring to claim 2, Hosur discloses receiving a request for the content from the client device, wherein the first subpart and the second subpart are transcoded based at least in part on receiving the request (the client request for source content in a target format, wherein the video and audio are transcoded based on the requested target format, as seen in the rejection of claim 1).
Referring to claim 3, Hosur discloses the request for the content comprises requested format information and the transcoding recipe is determined based at least in part on the requested format information (the client request for source content comprises a requested target format and the transcoding recipe is determined based on the requested target format, as seen in the rejection of claim 2).
Referring to claim 4, Hosur discloses the client device is a first client device (see Fig. 1, client device 60a); and
the set of operations further comprises:
storing the transcoded content in a data store, receiving, from a second client device, a request for the content, and providing, in response to the request for the content, the transcoded content from the data store (see Paragraphs 0012, 0083, and 0092 for disclosing storing the target files (the content after it has been transcoded in a particular format), receiving a future request from any future client (e.g., 60n) for the same content in the target format, wherein the stored target files are retrieved from storage and provided to the future client).
Referring to claim 5, Hosur discloses the first subpart of the content is a video track of the content and the second subpart of the content is an audio track of the content (as seen in the rejection of claim 1).
Referring to claim 6, Hosur discloses receiving, from a node of the CDN, a request for the transcoded content and providing, to the node of the CDN, the transcoded content (as seen in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the client 60a is interpreted as a node of the CDN 10 of Fig. 1).
Claim 7 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1, further noting it is the method that is performed by the system as seen in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
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 extension fee 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 NICHOLAS T CORBO whose telephone number is (571)270-5675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. 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.
/NICHOLAS T CORBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
03/31/2026
Prosecution Insights