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 .
Miscellaneous
Claims pending: 1-20
Claims amended: n/a
Claims cancelled: n/a
New claims: n/a
Double Patenting
Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,225,252 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Application's Claim(s) 1, 19-20 similarly claim: a method comprising: generating a first representation of a first relationship between bitrate and quality based on first features of a first portion of a video; analyzing the first representation to determine a first list of potential bitrates for the first portion of video; analyzing potential bitrates and quality associated with the respective potential bitrates to refine the first list of potential bitrates to a second list of bitrates, wherein the second list of bitrates includes a different list of bitrates than the first list of potential bitrates; and outputting the second list of bitrates for encoding the first portion of video.….. On the other hand, Patent No. 12,225,252 Claim(s) 1, (16, 20 similarly), claims a method comprising: generating, by a computing device, a first representation of a first relationship between bitrate and quality based on first features of a first portion of a video; generating, by the computing device, a second representation of a second relationship between bitrate and quality based on second features of a second portion of the video; analyzing, by the computing device, the first representation to determine a first list of bitrates for the first portion of video and analyzing the second representation to determine a second list of bitrates for the second portion of video, wherein the first list of bitrates is different from the second list of bitrates, wherein analyzing the first representation or analyzing the second representation comprises: generating a list of potential bitrates based on the first representation or the second representation, and refining the list of potential bitrates based to a quality associated with the potential bitrates to determine the first list of bitrates or the second list of bitrates, wherein refining the list of potential bitrates comprises: adding a first potential bitrate to the list of potential bitrates; and outputting, by the computing device, the first list of bitrates for encoding the first portion of video and the second list of bitrates for encoding the second portion of video. For that reason, Application's Claim(s) 1, 19-20 and Patented Claim(s) 1, 16, 20, are not patentably distinct from each other, and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claims 1, 19-20 of the instant application is fully encompassed by Claims 1, 16, and 20 of pat 12, 225,252. Allowance of application claims 1, 19-20 would result in an unjustified time- wise extension of the monopoly granted for the invention defined by patented claim(s) 1, 16, 20.
Therefore, obviousness-type double patenting is appropriate.
http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer
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, 4-7, 11-13, 15-16, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US Pub 20220046305) to (Labrozzi) in view of (US Pub 20180124146) to (Chen).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 19, 20, Labrozzi teach generating, a first representation of a first
relationship between bitrate and quality based on first features of a first portion of a video;
analyzing, the first representation to determine first bitrates for the first portion of
video analyzing potential bitrates and quality associated with the respective potential bitrates to refine the first list of potential bitrates to a second list of bitrates. (Fig 4-8, 16-19, 25-28, 32-33, 37-44, 61, 89, Stream Application provides a set or list of the available MABs for the asset, and the Streaming Client can select among them, and other embodiment wherein Stream Application may dynamically provide segments at lower bitrates if doing so would not reduce the quality beyond a preconfigured threshold, (Fig. 4, P. 37-45 for each segment there is list(s) of variants of different bitrates and corresponding quality score(s) per each variant bitrate, removing certain variant(s) due to comparing against threshold of quality score(s) and not being in the tolerance range, within the generated lists wherein the edited list after removing non tolerance items, reads on (refine first list of potential bitrates to a second list of bitrates) )
Labrozzi further teach non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions, which when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to be operable for, apparatus comprising one or more computer processors; and a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions for controlling the one or more computer processors to be operable for. (P. 17-18, 88-89, 90-99)
Labrozzi fail to specifically teach second list of bitrates includes a different list of bitrates than first list of potential bitrates; and outputting the second list of bitrates for encoding first portion of video.
Chen teach second list of bitrates includes a different list of bitrates than first list of potential bitrates; and outputting the second list of bitrates for encoding first portion of video. (Fig. 1, P. 6-8, 17-19, 21-22, 24-25, 27, 32-33, 35-37 Adaptive Bitrate (ABR) streaming that encodes a source video into multiple individual segments of the video into several representations of different encodings of the video, store multiple videos where each video is divided into multiple segments, manifest file may identify the available representations of the video (e.g., the available resolutions at available bitrates) and the segment boundaries for each segment of the video, use the manifest file to switch between encoded versions of a stream based on the available resources (e.g., CPU and bandwidth) of the respective client device, the different manifest files reads on (first/second list))
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 Labrozzi by second list of bitrates includes a different list of bitrates than first list of potential bitrates; and outputting the second list of bitrates for encoding first portion of video as taught by Chen in order to enable client device to switch from a first representation of the video to a second representation of the video in response to the changing resources or capabilities of the client device.
Regarding claim(s) 4-5, Labrozzi in view of Chen teach the method, analyzing potential bitrates and quality associated with the respective potential bitrates to refine the first list of potential bitrates to the second list of bitrates, the list of potential bitrates, determine the second list of bitrates, refining the list of potential bitrates.
Labrozzi further teach refining list of potential bitrates based on a quality associated with potential bitrates to determine second list of bitrates.
refining the list of potential bitrates comprise of removing a first potential bitrate from the list of potential bitrates. (Fig. 4, P. 37-45 for each segment there is list(s) of variants of different bitrates and corresponding quality score(s) per each variant bitrate, removing certain variant(s) due to comparing against threshold of quality score(s) and not being in the tolerance range).
Regarding claim(s) 6-7, Labrozzi in view of Chen teach the method, removing the potential bitrate.
Labrozzi further teach determining a second potential bitrate; comparing a first quality of first potential bitrate to a second quality of second potential bitrate; and determining whether to remove first potential bitrate based on the comparing;
first potential bitrate is removed from the list of potential bitrates when a difference between first quality and second quality meets a threshold. (Fig. 4, P. 37-45 for each segment there is list(s) of variants of different bitrates and corresponding quality score(s) per each variant bitrate, removing certain variant(s) due to comparing against threshold of quality score(s) and not being in the tolerance range.)
Regarding claim(s) 11, Labrozzi in view of Chen teach the method, analyzing potential bitrates and quality associated with the respective potential bitrates to refine the first list of potential bitrates to the second list of bitrates.
Labrozzi further teach analyzing a plurality of first representations for a plurality of segments in first portion of video or second portion of video; and
determining a first minimum bitrate and a first maximum bitrate for each of plurality of first representations; and
determining a second minimum bitrate and a second maximum bitrate for first portion of video or second portion of video based on the first minimum bitrate and the first maximum bitrate for each of plurality of first representations. (Fig. 7, P. 71-73, selecting a minimum bitrate 760, and MAB 745, and continue to 765 to determine whether there is one additional base segment to be evaluated for the selected MAB)
Regarding claim(s) 12, Labrozzi in view of Chen teach the method, analyzing potential bitrates and quality associated with the respective potential bitrates to refine the first list of potential bitrates to the second list of bitrates.
Labrozzi further teach generating a list of potential bitrates based on second minimum bitrate and second maximum bitrate, wherein potential bitrates in list of potential bitrates are analyzed to determine first list of bitrates or second list of bitrates. (Fig. 7, P. 71-75, selecting a minimum bitrate 760, and MAB 745, and continue to 765 and then to 775 to determine whether there is one additional base segment to be evaluated for the selected MAB, generating list of bitrates for potential output)
Regarding claim(s) 13, Labrozzi in view of Chen teach the method, analyzing potential bitrates and quality associated with the respective potential bitrates to refine the first list of potential bitrates to the second list of bitrates.
Labrozzi further teach determining potential removal candidate bitrates for each of plurality of first representations, wherein a potential removal candidate bitrate is a potential removal from list of potential bitrates; and determining whether to remove a potential removal candidate bitrate based on potential removal candidate bitrate being included as a potential removal candidate in one or more of each of plurality of first representations. (Fig. 6, P. 62-64 analysis and of MAB, augment rate, and determine to remove one or more MAB variants)
Regarding claim(s) 15, Labrozzi in view of Chen teach the method.
Labrozzi further teach first list of bitrates includes a bitrate that is not included in second list of bitrates. (Fig. 6, P. 62-64 analysis and of MAB, augment rate, and determine to remove one or more MAB variants, resulting in different assets having different list of variant bitrates)
Regarding claim(s) 16, Labrozzi in view of Chen teach the method, the second list of bitrates.
Labrozzi further teach encoding the first portion of video using second list of bitrates to generate a plurality of first encoded portions for first portion of video. (Fig. 4, P. 37-45 for each segment(s) there is list(s) of variants of different bitrates and corresponding quality score(s) per each variant bitrate, removing certain variant(s) thus generating new second list based on comparing against threshold of quality score(s) and not being in the tolerance range, and the user of the remaining bitrates reads on (encoding the first portion of video using second list of bitrates to generate a plurality of first encoded portions for first portion of video) )
Claim(s) 2-3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US Pub 20220046305) to (Labrozzi) in view of (US Pub 20180124146) to (Chen) in view of (US Pub 20230188764) to (Pahalawatta).
Regarding claim(s) 2, Labrozzi in view of Chen teach the method, generating the first, second representation, the first, second relationship for bitrate and quality.
Labrozzi in view of Chen fail to specifically teach generating a first prediction.
Pahalawatta Teach (Fig. 3, P. 19-20, 48-50, 52-53, 61-63, 69, 71-72, obtains predicted visual qualities for candidate bitrate and resolution combinations of the at least the portion of the first video program)
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 Labrozzi in view of Chen by generating a first prediction as taught by Pahalawatta in order to prevent highly variable video quality delivery and make the most effective use of network data.
Regarding claim(s) 3, Labrozzi in view of Chen teach Labrozzi in view of Chen teach the method, generating the first representation, the first relationship for bitrate and quality.
Labrozzi in view of Chen fail to specifically teach inputting first feature into a prediction network, generating a first prediction of the first representation(s) based on the first feature(s).
Pahalawatta teach inputting first feature into a prediction network, generating a first prediction of the first representation(s) based on the first feature(s). (Fig. 3, P. 19-20,45, 47-50, 52-53, 56, 61-63, 69, 71-72, obtains predicted visual qualities for candidate bitrate and resolution combinations of the at least the portion of the first video program, identify at least one feature set of at least a portion of a first video program, including a complexity factor, extract features of the source content, including spatial information (SI), temporal information (TI), and/or an complexity factor, e.g., bits per pixel (BPP) (or bits per other spatial unit, such as bits per macroblock, bits per coding tree unit (CTU), etc.). Next, the present disclosure may train and apply a prediction model (e.g., a machine learning model or other prediction models) that outputs a per-chunk video quality prediction as a function of resolution and bitrate (e.g., of a transcoded version of each chunk), and based upon the features of the source content of the chunk (e.g., a complexity factor, and in one example, further including SI and/or TI). Empirically, the complexity factor appears to be the feature most useful in prediction of video quality of transcoded chunks, using the input of the feature information and generating a prediction model for implementation, reads on (inputting first, second, features into a prediction network)).
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 Labrozzi in view of Chen by inputting first feature into a prediction network, generating a first prediction of the first representation(s) based on the first feature(s) as taught by Pahalawatta in order to prevent highly variable video quality delivery and make the most effective use of network data.
Claim(s) 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US Pub 20220046305) to (Labrozzi) in view of (US Pub 20180124146) to (Chen) in view of (US Pat 11729438) to (Jain).
Regarding claim(s) 17, Labrozzi in view of Chen teach the method.
Labrozzi further teach selecting an encoded segment from the plurality of first encoded portions in encoding ladder. (Fig. 1, 2, P. 21-23, 28-29, 31, 33, 67-69, 78,)
Labrozzi in view of Chen fail to teach a first profile in a profile ladder.
Jain teach a first profile in a profile ladder. (Fig. 1, C. 2, L. 27-56, encoding profile in encoding ladder 110 consisting of profiles 111a, and 111b)
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 Labrozzi in view of Chen by a first profile in a profile ladder as taught by Jain in order to avoid being limited in encoding parameters.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8-10, 14, 18, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONG LE whose telephone number is (571)270-7637. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9 am - 6pm).
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 5712721915. 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.
/RONG LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421