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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 8-20 are elected without traverse, see explanation below.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn.
Claims 8-20 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-7, are directed to obtaining motion data, lighting condition, and a sound level from multiple sensors associated with a receiver device and determining a first bit rate of visual information associated with a streaming video and a second bit rate of audio associated with the streaming video based on the motion data, the lighting condition, the sound level, an indication of network bandwidth and an indication of preferences associated with the receiver device, sending the visual information at the first bit rate to the receiver device, and sending the audio at the second bit rate to the receiver device, H04L65/80.
II. Claims 8-20, are directed to obtaining environmental data from multiple sensors associated with a receiver device, determining a bit rate associated with the streaming video based on the environmental data and the indication of network bandwidth and the indication of preferences associated with the receiver device, and sending the streaming video at the bit rate to the receiver device, H04L65/65.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)).
The combination in claims 8-20 has utility such as in the network streaming protocols.
In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed in claims 1-7 because obtaining motion data, lighting condition, and a sound level from multiple sensors associated with a receiver device and determining a first bit rate of visual information associated with a streaming video and a second bit rate of audio associated with the streaming video based on the motion data, the lighting condition, the sound level, an indication of network bandwidth and an indication of preferences associated with the receiver device, sending the visual information at the first bit rate to the receiver device, and sending the audio at the second bit rate to the receiver device in the claimed subcombination are not required by the claimed combination. The subcombination in claims 1-7 has separate utility such as in responding to QoS.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries);
the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group/invention I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made in the reply filed on 09/17/2026.
Applicant’s election of group/invention II in the reply filed on 09/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Also, the applicant has forfeited the right to petition from the requirement for restriction, because the applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out all errors to be relied upon in the petition in a timely filed traverse (MPEP 818.01(c)).
The applicant merely alleges that group I would not impose serious examination burden; however, the applicant does not provide any evidence to prove his assertion. The applicant’s statements are conclusionary and lacks any evidence to support his conclusionary evidence. It is merely the applicant’s opinion that there would not rise to the level of imposing a serious examination burden. Furthermore, the applicant misrepresents the examiner’s restriction.
Moreover, the applicant alleges with conclusionary statements that the classification of each of the groups are incorrect because the applicant does not provide any type of evidence to support his conclusionary statements. The examiner explained in the restriction with ample evidence why each of the groups were assigned to specific CPC classification. Group I – Claims 1-7, are directed to obtaining motion data, lighting condition, and a sound level from multiple sensors associated with a receiver device and determining a first bit rate of visual information associated with a streaming video and a second bit rate of audio associated with the streaming video based on the motion data, the lighting condition, the sound level, an indication of network bandwidth and an indication of preferences associated with the receiver device, sending the visual information at the first bit rate to the receiver device, and sending the audio at the second bit rate to the receiver device. Group I is classified under H04L65/80. Group II – Claims 8-20, are directed to obtaining environmental data from multiple sensors associated with a receiver device, determining a bit rate associated with the streaming video based on the environmental data and the indication of network bandwidth and the indication of preferences associated with the receiver device, and sending the streaming video at the bit rate to the receiver device. Group II is classified under H04L65/65.
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombinations as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombinations have utility by themselves or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). The combination in claims 1-7 has utility such as in the network streaming protocols. In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed in claims 1-7 because obtaining motion data, lighting condition, and a sound level from multiple sensors associated with a receiver device and determining a first bit rate of visual information associated with a streaming video and a second bit rate of audio associated with the streaming video based on the motion data, the lighting condition, the sound level, an indication of network bandwidth and an indication of preferences associated with the receiver device, sending the visual information at the first bit rate to the receiver device, and sending the audio at the second bit rate to the receiver device in the claimed subcombination are not required by the claimed combination. The subcombination in claims 1-7 has separate utility such as in responding to QoS.
Since groups I and II claim two different inventions, there would be a serious search burden if restriction were not required as evidenced by separate classification, status, or field of search. See MPEP § 808.02.
The applicant provides statement that is conclusionary statement, without any factual evidence, despite the obvious dissimilarity in scope between all the claims as described in the restriction by the examiner. As explained above, the aforementioned applicant’s statements are conclusionary statements that do not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, because the applicant does not provide any type of evidence that supports his assertion that the subject matters of claims 1-20 are interrelated to the extent that a search and examination of the subject matter of those claims would not be overly burdensome. The applicant’s arguments are false and are based on misrepresentation of the actual restriction and restriction practice. The aforementioned applicant’s broad allegation that the requirement is in error does not comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111. Since the election with traverse is accompanied by an incomplete traversal of the requirement for restriction, the required provisional election (see MPEP § 818.01(b)) has become an election without traverse. In addition, since the applicant does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election is being treated as an election without traverse and is being indicated to the applicant.
According to MPEP 818.01:
Election in reply to a requirement for restriction may be made either with or without an accompanying traverse of the requirement. A complete reply to a restriction requirement must include an election even if applicant traverses the requirement.
A traverse is a request for reconsideration of a requirement to restrict that must include a written statement of the reasons for traverse, distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors upon which the applicant relies for his or her conclusion that the requirement is in error. The absence of any statement indicating whether the requirement to restrict is traversed or the failure to provide reasons for traverse will be treated as an election without traverse.
According to MPEP 818.01(a):
As indicated in the first sentence of 37 CFR 1.143, the traverse to a requirement for restriction must be complete as required by 37 CFR 1.111(b). Under this rule, the applicant is required to specifically point out the reason(s) on which he or she bases his or her conclusion(s) that a requirement to restrict is in error. A mere broad allegation that the requirement is in error does not comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111. Thus the required provisional election (see MPEP § 818.01(b)) becomes an election without traverse if accompanied by an incomplete traversal of the requirement for restriction.
According to MPEP 818.01(c):
To preserve the right to petition from the requirement for restriction, all errors to be relied upon in the petition must be distinctly and specifically pointed out in a timely filed traverse by the applicant. If applicant does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election should be treated as an election without traverse and be so indicated to the applicant.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1 and 5 are missing element numbers and Fig. 6 is not eligible. 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 § 112
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.
Claims 14-20 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.
Claim limitations “14. … a context-sensing module configured to: obtain environmental data from multiple sensors associated with a receiver device; obtain an indication of network bandwidth associated with a network between a sender device and the receiver device; a QoE engine configured to: obtain an indication of preferences associated with the receiver device, …; an adaptive bit rate adaptation layer configured to: based on the environmental data and the indication of network bandwidth and the indication of preferences associated with the receiver device, determine a bit rate associated with the streaming video; and send the streaming video at the bit rate to the receiver device. 15. The system of claim 14, comprising: a processor to train a Quality of Experience (QoE) engine by: obtaining multiple metrics of user satisfaction including a rate of video rebuffering, a bit rate variation, and playback interruptions associated with the streaming video; obtaining the environmental data from the multiple sensors; establishing a correspondence between the multiple metrics and the environmental data; the QoE engine to: obtain current environmental data from the multiple sensors; and determine the bit rate associated with the streaming video based on the current environmental data from the multiple sensors. 16. The system of claim 14, comprising the adaptive bit rate adaptation layer configured to: prior to determining the bit rate, obtain an indication of a profile associated with a user of the receiver device, …; upon obtaining an indication that the user is the audiophile, reduce a first bit rate of visual information associated with the streaming video, prior to reducing a second bit rate of audio associated with the streaming video; and upon obtaining an indication that the user consumes streaming video associated with sports, and/or that the user consumes streaming video associated with games, reduce the second bit rate of audio associated with the streaming video prior to reducing the first bit rate of the visual information associated with the streaming video. 17. The system of claim 14, comprising the adaptive bit rate adaptation layer configured to: obtain an indication of an increase in speed associated with the receiver device; and upon obtaining the indication of the increase in speed associated with the receiver device, decrease the bit rate associated with the streaming video; or obtain an indication of an increase in ambient sound associated with the receiver device; and upon obtaining the indication of the increase in ambient sound associated with the receiver device, increase a second bit rate of audio associated with the streaming video; or obtain an indication of an increase in brightness in an environment associated with the receiver device; and upon obtaining the indication of increasing brightness in the environment associated with the receiver device, decrease a first bit rate of visual information associated with the streaming video. 18. The system of claim 14, comprising the QoE engine configured to: obtain an indication of an activity in which a user associated with the receiver device is engaged, wherein the activity includes walking, running, biking, or being transported by a vehicle; and based on the indication of the activity, adjust the bit rate associated with the streaming video. 19. The system of claim 14, comprising: the context-sensing module configured to, upon sending the streaming video at the bit rate to the receiver device, obtain an indication from the receiver device to adjust the bit rate; and a processor configured to train a Quality of Experience (QoE) engine based on the indication from the receiver device to adjust the bit rate and the environmental data from the multiple sensors. 20. The system of claim 14, comprising the adaptive bit rate adaptation layer configured to: estimate available bandwidth between the sender device and the receiver device; adjust an encoding bit rate and packet transmission rate based on the estimated available bandwidth; receive feedback from the receiver device via Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) packets containing information on packet loss and estimated bandwidth; and dynamically adapt a sending bit rate based on the feedback to optimize media transmission while minimizing latency and packet loss.” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claims. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 10-12, 14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US 20240143263) in view of Sharma (US 20200152234).
8, 14. Luo teaches:
A method comprising: – in paragraphs [0014]-[0020] (Bandwidth management methods and systems based on client-side environment data are described herein.)
obtaining environmental data from multiple sensors associated with a receiver device; – in paragraphs [0014]-[0020] (With the expansion of the Internet of Things (IoT), a variety of sensors that are configured to collect such environment data are ubiquitous. Client-side environment data may represent video data, audio data, and/or other types of data indicating behaviors of users to whom content is being presented and/or other conditions as they exist in a presentation environment where the user is located during the presentation of the content.)
obtaining an indication of network bandwidth associated with a network between a sender device and the receiver device; – in paragraphs [0014]-[0020] (With the expansion of the Internet of Things (IoT), a variety of sensors that are configured to collect such environment data are ubiquitous. To provide a few examples, webcams and microphones integrated in computing devices (e.g., laptop computers, televisions, etc.), security cameras configured to monitor a room, intelligent assistant devices with integrated microphones and network connections, and so forth, may all contribute environment data that can be used as a basis for intelligent bandwidth management based on client-side environment data described herein.)
obtaining an indication of preferences associated with the receiver device, – in paragraphs [0043]-[0048] (Machine learning model 404 may determine that one particular user tends to be silent and contemplative when fully engaged with a particular type of media content (e.g., a particular video game) while determining that another user tends to be more talkative and prone to verbal outbursts while similarly engaged. Machine learning model 404 may determine that one user prefers to stand near the television screen when engaging with a particular type of media content while determining that another user is unlikely to be engaging significantly with the content if he or she is standing.)
Luo does not explicitly teach:
wherein the indication of preferences indicates a first relationship between visual information quality associated with a streaming video and the environmental data and the indication of network bandwidth, and wherein the indication of preferences indicates a second relationship between audio quality associated with the streaming video and the environmental data and the indication of network bandwidth; based on the environmental data and the indication of network bandwidth and the indication of preferences associated with the receiver device, determining a bit rate associated with the streaming video; and sending the streaming video at the bit rate to the receiver device.
However, Sharma teaches:
wherein the indication of preferences indicates a first relationship between visual information quality associated with a streaming video and the environmental data and the indication of network bandwidth, and – in paragraphs [0005], [0029] (The audio quality level is dynamically adjusted according to one or more user preferences, the user preferences indicating whether audio or video is to be prioritized in the multimedia streaming connection. The content provider determines that sufficient bandwidth is available to increase the quality or bit rate of the audio. The content provider then increases the bit rate of the audio level to provide a higher quality audio experience. This higher-quality audio experience, however, does not come at the cost of a lower-quality video experience. When adjusting the bit rate of the audio signal, the content provider maintains a minimum video quality level. Thus, if bandwidth drops for some reason, the audio quality will be reduced to maintain the minimum video quality level. In this manner, the quality level of the audio signal is dynamically adjusted to provide the highest quality audio signal whenever possible. However, if the available bandwidth will not allow both a high-quality audio signal and a minimum quality video signal, the audio signal will be adjusted downward so as not to degrade the video quality.)
wherein the indication of preferences indicates a second relationship between audio quality associated with the streaming video and the environmental data and the indication of network bandwidth; – in paragraphs [0005], [0086] (The audio quality level is dynamically adjusted according to one or more user preferences, the user preferences indicating whether audio or video is to be prioritized in the multimedia streaming connection. The data bit rate for the audio stream changes over time and, at least in some cases, changes dramatically. For example, the data bit rate changes when the user is moving in and out of cell phone coverage when in a car. To compensate for such changes in available bandwidth, a distribution system (e.g., 401 of FIG. 4) implements a series of network tests to determine the current available bandwidth between the distribution system and the user's playback device. The distribution system then uses this determination to choose an appropriate bit rate for one or more of the content streams.)
based on the environmental data and the indication of network bandwidth and the indication of preferences associated with the receiver device, determining a bit rate associated with the streaming video; and – in paragraphs [0088]-[0095] (When varying the bit rate for an audio stream, the distribution system takes into consideration the video bit rate. At least in some embodiments, providing high-quality video is the top priority, and providing high-quality audio is a secondary consideration. In such cases, the distribution system provides a video signal that is optimal for the network conditions and then uses any remaining bandwidth to transmit an audio signal that is as high quality as possible. Thus, the distribution system determines how to allocate bandwidth based not only on the device constraints, but also the continually changing available bandwidth.)
sending the streaming video at the bit rate to the receiver device. – in paragraphs [0088]-[0095] (The disclosed systems automatically increase the bit rate for the audio stream, thereby increasing the quality of the audio. If the user's connection slows and the available bandwidth is reduced, the bit rate for the audio stream is dynamically reduced to ensure that video quality is not impacted or is only minimally impacted by the reduced bandwidth.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Luo with Sharma to include wherein the indication of preferences indicates a first relationship between visual information quality associated with a streaming video and the environmental data and the indication of network bandwidth, and wherein the indication of preferences indicates a second relationship between audio quality associated with the streaming video and the environmental data and the indication of network bandwidth; based on the environmental data and the indication of network bandwidth and the indication of preferences associated with the receiver device, determining a bit rate associated with the streaming video; and sending the streaming video at the bit rate to the receiver device, as taught by Sharma, in paragraphs [0002]-[0031], to provide a technique for dynamically adjusting audio quality level in a multimedia streaming connection.
10, 16. The method of claim 8, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Sharma teaches:
comprising: prior to determining the bit rate, obtaining an indication of a profile associated with a user of the receiver device, wherein the profile indicates whether the user is an audiophile, whether the user consumes streaming video associated with sports, and whether the user consumes streaming video associated with games; upon obtaining an indication that the user is the audiophile, reducing a first bit rate of visual information associated with the streaming video, prior to reducing a second bit rate of audio associated with the streaming video; and upon obtaining an indication that the user consumes streaming video associated with sports, and/or that the user consumes streaming video associated with games, reducing the second bit rate of audio associated with the streaming video prior to reducing the first bit rate of the visual information associated with the streaming video. – in paragraphs [0005], [0029] (The audio quality level is dynamically adjusted according to one or more user preferences, the user preferences indicating whether audio or video is to be prioritized in the multimedia streaming connection. The content provider determines that sufficient bandwidth is available to increase the quality or bit rate of the audio. The content provider then increases the bit rate of the audio level to provide a higher quality audio experience. This higher-quality audio experience, however, does not come at the cost of a lower-quality video experience. When adjusting the bit rate of the audio signal, the content provider maintains a minimum video quality level. Thus, if bandwidth drops for some reason, the audio quality will be reduced to maintain the minimum video quality level. In this manner, the quality level of the audio signal is dynamically adjusted to provide the highest quality audio signal whenever possible. However, if the available bandwidth will not allow both a high-quality audio signal and a minimum quality video signal, the audio signal will be adjusted downward so as not to degrade the video quality.)
11, 17. The method of claim 8, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Sharma teaches:
comprising: obtaining an indication of an increase in speed associated with the receiver device; and upon obtaining the indication of the increase in speed associated with the receiver device, decreasing the bit rate associated with the streaming video; or obtaining an indication of an increase in ambient sound associated with the receiver device; and upon obtaining the indication of the increase in ambient sound associated with the receiver device, increasing a second bit rate of audio associated with the streaming video; or obtaining an indication of an increase in brightness in an environment associated with the receiver device; and upon obtaining the indication of increasing brightness in the environment associated with the receiver device, decreasing a first bit rate of visual information associated with the streaming video. – in paragraphs [0088]-[0095] (When varying the bit rate for an audio stream, the distribution system takes into consideration the video bit rate. At least in some embodiments, providing high-quality video is the top priority, and providing high-quality audio is a secondary consideration. In such cases, the distribution system provides a video signal that is optimal for the network conditions and then uses any remaining bandwidth to transmit an audio signal that is as high quality as possible. Thus, the distribution system determines how to allocate bandwidth based not only on the device constraints, but also the continually changing available bandwidth.)
12, 18. The method of claim 8, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Sharma teaches:
comprising: obtaining an indication of an activity in which a user associated with the receiver device is engaged, wherein the activity includes walking, running, biking, or being transported by a vehicle; and based on the indication of the activity, adjusting the bit rate associated with the streaming video. – in paragraphs [0005], [0086] (The audio quality level is dynamically adjusted according to one or more user preferences, the user preferences indicating whether audio or video is to be prioritized in the multimedia streaming connection. The data bit rate for the audio stream changes over time and, at least in some cases, changes dramatically. For example, the data bit rate changes when the user is moving in and out of cell phone coverage when in a car. To compensate for such changes in available bandwidth, a distribution system (e.g., 401 of FIG. 4) implements a series of network tests to determine the current available bandwidth between the distribution system and the user's playback device. The distribution system then uses this determination to choose an appropriate bit rate for one or more of the content streams.)
Claim(s) 9, 13, 15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US 20240143263) in view of Sharma (US 20200152234), and further in view of Tao Chen (US 20240073268).
9, 15. The method of claim 8, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Sharma teaches:
comprising: training a Quality of Experience (QoE) engine by: obtaining multiple metrics of user satisfaction including a rate of video rebuffering, a bit rate variation, and playback interruptions associated with the streaming video; establishing a correspondence between the multiple metrics and the environmental data; obtaining current environmental data from the multiple sensors; and determining, using the QoE engine, the bit rate associated with the streaming video based on the current environmental data from the multiple sensors. – in paragraphs [0085]-[0103] (When initially starting an audio-video stream, the distribution system streams the data at a bit rate that is, for example, 75% of the maximum available. Then, over time, the distribution system increments that upwards until the bit rate is at or close to 100% of the maximum available at that moment. In some cases, the margin curve is different for audio data than would be used with video data. For example, because audio buffers have smaller caches, and because video quality is prioritized over audio quality (at least in some cases), video margin curves skew higher such that the initial bit rate for video is at 85-90% of the maximum available bit rate, thereby providing higher quality. In devices that have a larger audio cache, the margin curve also skews higher since more data is buffered. Conversely, in playback devices that have smaller data caches, the margin curve skews smaller, indicating that a bit rate of 60-70% of the maximum bit rate should be used since only a small amount of data is buffered on such devices.)
Combination of Luo and Sharma does not explicitly teach:
training a Quality of Experience (QoE) engine.
However, Tao Chen teaches:
training a Quality of Experience (QoE) engine – in paragraphs [0071]-[0075] (The QoE engine may utilize a trained model to accept bandwidth, buffer levels, and traffic data and output an optimized bitrate.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Luo and Sharma with Tao Chen to include training a Quality of Experience (QoE) engine, as taught by Tao Chen, in paragraphs [0001]-[0027], to provide processes for maintaining quality of experience (QoE) during adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming of content.
13, 19. The method of claim 8, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Sharma teaches:
comprising: upon sending the streaming video at the bit rate to the receiver device, obtaining an indication from the receiver device to adjust the bit rate; and training a Quality of Experience (QoE) engine based on the indication from the receiver device to adjust the bit rate and the environmental data from the multiple sensors.– in paragraphs [0088]-[0095] (When varying the bit rate for an audio stream, the distribution system takes into consideration the video bit rate. At least in some embodiments, providing high-quality video is the top priority, and providing high-quality audio is a secondary consideration. In such cases, the distribution system provides a video signal that is optimal for the network conditions and then uses any remaining bandwidth to transmit an audio signal that is as high quality as possible. Thus, the distribution system determines how to allocate bandwidth based not only on the device constraints, but also the continually changing available bandwidth.)
Combination of Luo and Sharma does not explicitly teach:
training a Quality of Experience (QoE) engine.
However, Tao Chen teaches:
training a Quality of Experience (QoE) engine – in paragraphs [0071]-[0075] (The QoE engine may utilize a trained model to accept bandwidth, buffer levels, and traffic data and output an optimized bitrate.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Luo and Sharma with Tao Chen to include training a Quality of Experience (QoE) engine, as taught by Tao Chen, in paragraphs [0001]-[0027], to provide processes for maintaining quality of experience (QoE) during adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming of content.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (US 20240143263) in view of Sharma (US 20200152234), and further in view of Huacheng Chen (US 20240223832).
20. The system of claim 14, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Sharma teaches:
comprising the adaptive bit rate adaptation layer configured to: estimate available bandwidth between the sender device and the receiver device; adjust an encoding bit rate and packet transmission rate based on the estimated available bandwidth; – in paragraphs [0088]-[0095] (The disclosed systems automatically increase the bit rate for the audio stream, thereby increasing the quality of the audio. If the user's connection slows and the available bandwidth is reduced, the bit rate for the audio stream is dynamically reduced to ensure that video quality is not impacted or is only minimally impacted by the reduced bandwidth.)
Combination of Luo and Sharma does not explicitly teach:
receive feedback from the receiver device via Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) packets containing information on packet loss and estimated bandwidth; and dynamically adapt a sending bit rate based on the feedback to optimize media transmission while minimizing latency and packet loss.
However, Huacheng Chen teaches:
receive feedback from the receiver device via Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) packets containing information on packet loss and estimated bandwidth; and dynamically adapt a sending bit rate based on the feedback to optimize media transmission while minimizing latency and packet loss. – in paragraphs [0041], [0070] (When the terminal plays back the video stream transcoded according to the first bitrate, the terminal or the server may detect the network state of the transmission link at a certain frequency to determine whether the bitrate adjustment is required. The bitrate adjustment includes, but is not limited to, increasing the bitrate, keeping the bitrate unchanged, and decreasing the bitrate. A detection frequency may be set according to an actual requirement. The network state may be determined based on one or more of a rate, a bandwidth, delay, latency bandwidth product, a packet loss rate, and throughput of the transmission link. The network state information includes, but is not limited to, one or more of an arrival time of a real-time transport protocol (RTP) message, a packet loss rate, a link bandwidth, and a congestion signal. The feedback message may include, but is not limited to, a message feeding back the arrival time of the RTP message (e.g., a transport-wide congestion control (Transport-CC) message), a message feeding back RTP packet receiving statistics, a message requesting I frames, and a negative acknowledgements (NACK) message, which may be a standard web real-time communications (WebRTC) real-time control protocol (RTCP) message or a private message.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Luo and Sharma with Huacheng Chen to include receive feedback from the receiver device via Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) packets containing information on packet loss and estimated bandwidth; and dynamically adapt a sending bit rate based on the feedback to optimize media transmission while minimizing latency and packet loss, as taught by Huacheng Chen, in paragraphs [0002]-[0024], to provide a video stream bitrate adjustment technique, which greatly reduces livestreaming delay and has higher real-time performance by using an adaptive bitrate adjustment manner for video livestreaming.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-7734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M..
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571)272-7304. 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.
/MUHAMMAD RAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
