DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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) 1, 5-8, 11, 15-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalagi et al. (US 2019/0327510) in view of Nihei (US 2019/0182520).
Claim 1, Kalagi teaches a bandwidth allocation method, comprising:
determining a first estimated bandwidth (i.e. bandwidth required for transmitting content) corresponding to a plurality of video streams (i.e. manifest file contains bandwidth requirements for all content (p. 0142-0143);
determining a state degradation sequence (i.e. segments with lower resolution) corresponding to the plurality of video streams based on stream attribute information of each video stream (i.e. resolution), the state degradation sequence comprising a plurality of resolution states (i.e. different resolutions and bitrates) arranged in a degradation order, and each resolution state comprising a transmission resolution of each video stream (i.e. each segment in multiple resolutions and bitrates) (p. 0133, 0142-0143);
performing resolution-degraded bandwidth allocation process based on the state degradation sequence corresponding to the plurality of video streams (i.e. choosing the segments according to the quality for the network conditions), a current transmission resolution of each video stream, and the first estimated bandwidth, to determine a degraded target resolution state corresponding to the plurality of video streams (i.e. achieve first quality at a given observed network bandwidth) (p. 0145); and
transmitting the plurality of video streams based on a first transmission resolution of each video stream in the first resolution state (p. 0145, 0147).
Kalagi is not entirely clear in teaching the specific feature of:
“wherein the first estimated bandwidth indicates a bandwidth required to transmit the plurality of video streams”.
Nihei teaches the specific feature of:
“wherein the first estimated bandwidth indicates a bandwidth required to transmit the plurality of video streams” (i.e. available bandwidth is determined for a particular time for transmitting streams) (p. 0079-0080, 0097-0102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided estimated bandwidth as taught by Nihei to the system of Kalagi to provide estimated bandwidth accounting for a change in degree over time (p.0100).
Claim 5, Kalagi teaches The bandwidth allocation method according to claim 1, wherein performing the resolution-degraded bandwidth allocation process based on the state degradation sequence corresponding to the plurality of video streams, the current transmission resolution of each video stream and the target estimated bandwidth, to determine the degraded target resolution state corresponding to the plurality of video streams comprises:
determining a current resolution state corresponding to the plurality of video streams based on the state degradation sequence corresponding to the plurality of video streams and the current transmission resolution of each video stream (i.e. manifest file contains multiple segments of each content at different bitrates and resolutions for a given time according to network capacity) (p. 0132-0133);
determining a next resolution state of the current resolution state based on the state degradation sequence (i.e. manifest file points to segments for a particular network state), and determining a target transmission bandwidth corresponding to the next resolution state (i.e. choosing one of the multiple segments of each content at different bitrates and resolutions for a given time according to network capacity) (p. 0132-0133); and
comparing the target transmission bandwidth corresponding to the next resolution state with the target estimated bandwidth, and determining the target resolution state corresponding to the plurality of video streams based on a comparison result (i.e. target quality for the network capacity (p. 0132-0133, 0145).
Claim 6, Kalagi teaches The bandwidth allocation method according to claim 5, wherein determining the current resolution state corresponding to the plurality of video streams based on the state degradation sequence corresponding to the plurality of video streams and the current transmission resolution of each video stream comprises:
determining an actual resolution state corresponding to the plurality of video streams (i.e. maximum bitrate/resolution) based on the current transmission resolution of each video stream (i.e. network capacity) (p. 0132-0133);
in response to the actual resolution state existing in the state degradation sequence (i.e. some segments transmitted at maximum bitrate while downgrading other segments), determining the actual resolution state as the current resolution state corresponding to the plurality of video streams (i.e. segment being transmitted at maximum bitrate) (p. 0132-0133, 0136, 0138); and
in response to the actual resolution state (i.e. maximum bitrate) not existing in the state degradation sequence (i.e. not enough bandwidth to transmit maximum bitrate segment), comparing an estimated transmission bandwidth (i.e. network capacity) corresponding to each resolution state in the state degradation sequence with an actual transmission bandwidth (i.e. transmission bandwidth) corresponding to the actual resolution state, and determining the current resolution state (i.e. quality information of each stream) corresponding to the plurality of video streams based on a comparison result (i.e. some segments transmitted at maximum bitrate while downgrading other segments) (p. 0132-0133, 0150-0152).
Claim 7, Kalagi teaches The bandwidth allocation method according to claim 5, wherein determining the target transmission bandwidth corresponding to the next resolution state comprises:
transmitting the plurality of video streams based on a transmission resolution of each video stream in the next resolution state (i.e. bitrate/resolution of stream according to network capacity), to obtain an actual transmission bitrate of each video stream (i.e. selected stream based on network capacity) (p. 0132-0133, 0145); and
determining the target transmission bandwidth (i.e. target quality at a given observed network bandwidth) corresponding to the next resolution state (i.e. downgrading bitrate after a maximum bitrate segment) based on the actual transmission bitrate of each video stream (p. 0132-0133, 0175, 0185).
Claim 8, Kalagi teaches The bandwidth allocation method according to claim 5, wherein determining the target resolution state corresponding to the plurality of video streams based on the comparison result comprises:
in response to the target transmission bandwidth corresponding to the next resolution state being equal to or less than the target estimated bandwidth (i.e. downgraded segment resolution to accommodate previous maximum bitrate segment), determining the next resolution state as the target resolution state corresponding to the plurality of video streams (i.e. analyzing bandwidth on a time period basis) (p. 0132-0133, 0185-187); and
in response to the target transmission bandwidth corresponding to the next resolution state being greater than the target estimated bandwidth (i.e. based on lower network capacity), re-performing, by taking the next resolution state as the current resolution state (i.e. switching ot lower bitrate stream), the determining the next resolution state of the current resolution state based on the state degradation sequence (i.e. accessing manifest file for lower bitrate stream) (p. 0132-0133, 0185-0187).
Claim 11 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 1.
Claim 15 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 5.
Claim 16 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 6.
Claim 17 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 7.
Claim 18 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 8.
Claim 20 recites “A non-transitory storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by a computer processor” to perform the steps of claim 1. Kalagi inherently teaches A non-transitory storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by a computer processor” to perform the steps of claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-4, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalagi et al. (US 2019/0327510) in view of Nihei (US 2019/0182520), and further in view of Harb (US 2019/0116101).
Claim 2, Kalagi teaches the bandwidth allocation method according to claim 1, wherein the stream attribute information of each video stream comprises:
“a subscription resolution (i.e. manifest file contains rules for segments) and preset stream attribute information” (i.e. bitrates and resolutions for segments) (p. 0142-0143).
Kalagi is not entirely clear in teaching the specific feature of:
the preset stream attribute information comprises at least one of:
whether a video stream is a shared video stream, whether the video stream is of an active speaker, whether a frame is droppable, and resolution degradable times of each transmission resolution.
Harb teaches the specific feature of:
the preset stream attribute information comprises at least one of:
whether a video stream is a shared video stream, whether the video stream is of an active speaker (i.e. monologue scene) (p. 0067), whether a frame is droppable, and resolution degradable times of each transmission resolution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided scene specific quality parameters as taught by Harb to the system of Kalagi to provide improved quality of service in poor bandwidth conditions (p. 0067).
Claim 3, Kalagi teaches The bandwidth allocation method according to claim 2, wherein determining the state degradation sequence corresponding to the plurality of video streams based on the stream attribute information of each video stream comprises:
determining an initial resolution state (i.e. maximum bitrate) based on the subscription resolution (i.e. service to provide multiple segments of a content) of each video stream (p. 0132-0133);
performing resolution degradation process on the video stream based on the preset stream attribute information of each video stream and the initial resolution state to obtain a resolution state degraded at each time (i.e. manifest file contains multiple segments of each content at different bitrates and resolutions for a given time according to network capacity) (p. 0132-0133); and
determining the state degradation sequence (i.e. manifest file) corresponding to the plurality of video streams based on the initial resolution state and the resolution state degraded at each time (i.e. manifest file lists maximum bitrate and alternative bitrates for all network conditions) (p. 0132-0133).
Claim 4, Kalagi is not entirely clear in teaching The bandwidth allocation method according to claim 3, wherein performing the resolution degradation process on the video stream based on the preset stream attribute information of each video stream and the initial resolution state to obtain the resolution state degraded at each time comprises:
determining current degradation priority of each video stream based on the preset stream attribute information of each video stream and the initial resolution state, and determining, based on the current degradation priority, a current target video stream to be degraded;
performing degradation process on a transmission resolution of the current target video stream in the initial resolution state, to determine a second resolution state degraded at a first time; and
performing subsequent degradation process based on the second resolution state until each video stream in a resolution state reaches a lowest resolution.
Harb teaches the specific features of:
determining current degradation priority (i.e. action scenes higher priority) of each video stream based on the preset stream attribute information (i.e. quality of each scene) of each video stream and the initial resolution state, and determining, based on the current degradation priority, a current target video stream to be degraded (i.e. monologue scene gets lower resolution) (p. 0067);
performing degradation process on a transmission resolution of the current target video stream in the initial resolution state, to determine a second resolution state degraded at a first time (i.e. monologue scene gets lower resolution) (p. 0066-0067); and
performing subsequent degradation process based on the second resolution state until each video stream in a resolution state reaches a lowest resolution (i.e. minimum video resolution under current conditions) (p. 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided scene specific quality parameters as taught by Harb to the system of Kalagi to provide improved quality of service in poor bandwidth conditions (p. 0067).
Claim 12 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 2.
Claim 13 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 3.
Claim 14 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 4.
Claim(s) 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalagi et al. (US 2019/0327510) in view of Nihei (US 2019/0182520), and further in view of Yang et al (US 9553913).
Claim 9, Kalagi teaches the bandwidth allocation method according to claim 7, wherein determining the target transmission bandwidth corresponding to the next resolution state based on the actual transmission bitrate of each video stream comprises:
determining a minimum transmission bitrate (i.e. minimum average bitrate) for transmitting a lowest layer of the first video stream based on an actual transmission bitrate of the first video stream (i.e. average bitrate) (p. 0185); and
determining a minimum transmission bandwidth (i.e. minimum bandwidth required) corresponding to the next resolution state (i.e. switching decisions of streams) based on the minimum transmission bitrate corresponding to the first video stream (i.e. maximum bitrate of a stream) and an actual transmission bitrate of the second video stream (i.e. bitrate selected according to network conditions), and determining the minimum transmission bandwidth as the target transmission bandwidth corresponding to the next resolution state (i.e. minimum bandwidth required to stream content) (p. 0137, 0185).
Kalagi is not entirely clear in teaching the specific feature of:
determining a first video stream of which a frame is droppable and a second video stream of which a frame is non-droppable.
Yang teaches the specific feature of:
determining a first video stream of which a frame is droppable and a second video stream of which a frame is non-droppable (col. 23, lines 27-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided droppable frames as taught by Yang to the system of Kalagi to change algorithm settings (col. 23, lines 27-67).
Claim 19 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 9.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalagi et al. (US 2019/0327510) in view of Nihei (US 2019/0182520), and further in view of Yang et al (US 9553913), and further in view of Baik et al. (US 2017/0347159).
Claim 10, Kalagi teaches The bandwidth allocation method according to claim 9, wherein transmitting the plurality of video streams based on the target transmission resolution of each video stream in the target resolution state comprises:
in response to a maximum transmission bandwidth corresponding to the target resolution state being greater than the target estimated bandwidth (i.e. maximum bitrate greater than network capacity), determining a frame drop order corresponding to the plurality of video streams based on the stream attribute information of each video stream (i.e. downgrading other segments).
Kalagi is not entirely clear in teaching the specific feature of:
performing frame-dropped bandwidth allocation process on the plurality of video streams based on the frame drop order and the target estimated bandwidth, and transmitting the plurality of frame-dropped video streams based on the target transmission resolution of each video stream in the target resolution state.
Baik teaches the specific feature of:
performing frame-dropped bandwidth allocation process (i.e. mark removable frames) on the plurality of video streams based on the frame drop order and the target estimated bandwidth (i.e. reduce bandwidth), and transmitting the plurality of frame-dropped video streams based on the target transmission resolution of each video stream in the target resolution state (p. 0054-0056, 0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided bandwidth reduction as taught by Baik to the system of Kalagi to eliminate easting of bandwidth (p. 0063).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSHFIKH I ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1710. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00PM-9:00PM.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
MUSHFIKH I. ALAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2426
/MUSHFIKH I ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 9/9/2026
Prosecution Insights