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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 10 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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dahl et al. (Pub No US 2022/0264168). Hereinafter, referenced as Dahl.
Regarding claim 1, Dahl discloses a computer-implemented method for streaming audiovisual data associated with media titles, the method comprising:
generating a set of bitrate combinations associated with a media title (Paragraphs [0056] [0065] figure 1; custom encoding ladder of the input video);
generating a set of quality metrics (Paragraph [0014]; bitrate resolution pairs to maximize a quality score) corresponding to the set of bitrate combinations based on an audio portion of the media title and a video portion of the media title (Paragraph [0101]-[0103] figure 5; audio portion corresponding to each video segment);
identifying a subset of bitrate combinations included in the set of bitrate combinations that reside along a convex hull (Figure 4) that is associated with the set of bitrate combinations and the set of quality metrics (Paragraphs [0021] [0022] [0053] figures 1 and 4; set of bitrate-resolution pairs can approximate a “convex hull” of encoding parameters for the input video, wherein any increase in resolution at the same bitrate or decrease in resolution at the same bitrate does not improve the viewing quality of the encoded input video);
and causing an endpoint device to stream at least one of the audio portion of the media title or the video portion of the media title based on the subset of bitrate combinations (Paragraphs [0026] [0102] figure 1; once the encoding ladder for the video is generated it may be distributed to requesting users).
Regarding claim 2, Dahl discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1; moreover, Dahl discloses that each bitrate combination included in the set of bitrate combinations includes an audio bitrate associated with the audio portion of the media title and a video bitrate associated with the video portion of the media title (Paragraphs [0125] [0127] [0149]; encode audio and video at different bitrates).
Regarding claim 3, Dahl discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1; moreover, Dahl discloses that each quality metric included in the set of quality metrics corresponds to a different bitrate combination included in the set of bitrate combinations (Paragraphs [0015] [0018] figures 1 and 4; generating an encoding ladder for given subsets of bitrate-resolution pairs).
Regarding claims 11-13, Dahl discloses all the limitations of claims 11-13; therefore, claims 11-13 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 1-3, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, Dahl discloses all the limitations of claim 20; therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1..
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 4, 14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl in view of Sen et al. (Pub No US 2023/0388570). Hereinafter, referenced as Sen.
Regarding claim 4, Dahl discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1; moreover, Dahl discloses an audio portion of the media title with a first video bitrate associated with the video portion of the media title to generate a first bitrate combination included in the set of bitrate combinations (claim 1).
However, it is noted that Dahl is silent to explicitly disclose generating the set of bitrate combinations comprises: pairing a first audio bitrate associated with the audio portion of the media title with a first video bitrate associated with the video portion of the media title to generate a first bitrate combination included in the set of bitrate combinations; and increasing at least one of the first audio bitrate or the first video bitrate to generate a second bitrate combination included in the set of bitrate combinations.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Sen discloses generating the set of bitrate combinations comprises: pairing a first audio bitrate associated with the audio portion of the media title with a first video bitrate associated with the video portion of the media title to generate a first bitrate combination included in the set of bitrate combinations; and increasing at least one of the first audio bitrate or the first video bitrate to generate a second bitrate combination included in the set of bitrate combinations (Paragraphs [0049] [0076] figure 2C and 2F; encoding bitrate representation for audio and video tracks separately, allowing for all combinations of audio and video tracks to be possible dependent on the client device).
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 Dahl by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Sen, for the predictable result of allowing all combinations possible for selecting video and audio tracks based on the network conditions or client device capabilities (Sen – figure 2F).
Regarding claim 14, Dahl and Sen disclose all the limitations of claim 14; therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, Dahl discloses the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11; moreover, Dahl discloses the step of causing the endpoint device to stream at least one of the audio portion of the media title or the video portion of the media title (claim 1).
However, it is noted that Dahl is silent to explicitly disclose causing the endpoint device to select a first bitrate combination included in the subset of bitrate combinations, wherein the first bitrate combination includes an first audio bitrate and a first video bitrate; and causing the endpoint device to stream at least one of an audio stream that is included in the audio portion of the media title and encoded using the first audio bitrate or a video stream that is included in the video portion of the media title and encoded using the first video bitrate.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Sen discloses causing the endpoint device to select a first bitrate combination included in the subset of bitrate combinations, wherein the first bitrate combination includes an first audio bitrate and a first video bitrate; and causing the endpoint device to stream at least one of an audio stream that is included in the audio portion of the media title and encoded using the first audio bitrate or a video stream that is included in the video portion of the media title and encoded using the first video bitrate (Paragraphs [0049] [0076] figure 2C and 2F; encoding bitrate representation for audio and video tracks separately, allowing for all combinations of audio and video tracks to be possible dependent on the client device).
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 Dahl by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Sen, for the predictable result of allowing all combinations possible for selecting video and audio tracks based on the network conditions or client device capabilities (Sen – figure 2F).
Regarding claim 19, Dahl discloses the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11; moreover, Dahl discloses the step of causing the endpoint device to stream at least one of the audio portion of the media title or the video portion of the media title (claim 1).
However, it is noted that Dahl is silent to explicitly disclose causing the endpoint device to select a first bitrate combination included in the subset of bitrate combinations based on at least one of an amount of available network bandwidth or a network request status associated with the audio portion of the media title or the video portion of the media title; and causing the endpoint device to stream at least one of an audio stream that is included in the audio portion of the media title or a video stream that is included in the video portion of the media title based on the first bitrate combination.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Sen discloses causing the endpoint device to select a first bitrate combination included in the subset of bitrate combinations based on at least one of an amount of available network bandwidth or a network request status associated with the audio portion of the media title or the video portion of the media title (Paragraphs [0039] [0040]; bandwidth conditions);
and causing the endpoint device to stream at least one of an audio stream that is included in the audio portion of the media title or a video stream that is included in the video portion of the media title based on the first bitrate combination (Paragraphs [0049] [0076] figure 2C and 2F; encoding bitrate representation for audio and video tracks separately, allowing for all combinations of audio and video tracks to be possible dependent on the client device).
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 Dahl by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Sen, for the predictable result of allowing all combinations possible for selecting video and audio tracks based on the network conditions or client device capabilities (Sen – figure 2F).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl in view of Li (Pub No US 2018/0121730). Hereinafter, referenced as Li.
Regarding claim 7, Dahl discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1; moreover, Dahl discloses a first quality metric included in the set of quality metrics (claim 1).
However, it is noted that Dahl is silent to explicitly disclose computing a subjective audio quality metric for a first audio stream included in the audio portion of the media title; computing a video multi-method assessment fusion value for a first video stream included in the video portion of the media title; and combining the subjective audio quality metric and the video multi-method assessment fusion value.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Li discloses computing a subjective audio quality metric for a first audio stream included in the audio portion of the media title (Paragraphs [0082] figure 1; subjective score of the audio);
computing a video multi-method assessment fusion value for a first video stream included in the video portion of the media title (Paragraph [0029] figure 1; assess visual quality of portions of video content 135);
and combining the subjective audio quality metric and the video multi-method assessment fusion value (Paragraph [0068] figure 4; generate a model of raw opinion scores with subjective scores and factors).
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 Dahl by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Li, for the predictable result of mitigating inaccuracies in raw opinion scores that reflect the perceived quality of reconstructed video content (Li – paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 16, Dahl and Li disclose all the limitations of claim 16; therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 7.
Claims 8, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl in view of Katsavounidis (Pub No US 2019/0028745). Hereinafter, referenced as Katsavounidis.
Regarding claim 8, Dahl discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1; moreover, Dahl discloses identifying the subset of bitrate combinations (claim 1).
However, it is noted that Dahl is silent to explicitly disclose generating a set of data points based on the set of bitrate combinations and the set of quality metrics; projecting the set of data points onto a two-dimensional plane; and determining a subset of data points included in the set of data points that form a border along the set of data points on the two-dimensional plane, wherein the subset of bitrate combinations corresponds to the subset of data points
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Katsavounidis discloses generating a set of data points based on the set of bitrate combinations and the set of quality metrics (Paragraphs [0054] [0055] figure 5A; bitrate 510 and quality matric 520);
projecting the set of data points onto a two-dimensional plane (Paragraphs [0054] [0055] figure 5A; bitrate 510 and quality matric 520 on 2D plane);
and determining a subset of data points included in the set of data points that form a border along the set of data points on the two-dimensional plane, wherein the subset of bitrate combinations corresponds to the subset of data points (Paragraphs [0054] [0055] figure 5A; quality curves 502, 504, and 506 plotted against bitrate axis 510 and QM axis 520).
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 Dahl by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Katsavounidis, for the predictable result of performing one or more convex hull operations across the first set of data points to compute a first subset of data points that are optimized in order to maximize the average quality (Katsavounidis – paragraphs [0007] [0009]).
Regarding claim 9, Dahl discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1; moreover, Dahl discloses identifying the subset of bitrate combinations (claim 1).
However, it is noted that Dahl is silent to explicitly disclose generating a set of data points based on the set of bitrate combinations and the set of quality metrics; generating a first slope value between a first data point included in the set of data points and a second data point included in the set of data points; and determining that a bitrate combination associated with the second data point should be included in the subset of bitrate combinations based on the first slope value.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Katsavounidis discloses generating a set of data points based on the set of bitrate combinations and the set of quality metrics (Paragraphs [0054] [0055] figure 5A; bitrate 510 and quality matric 520);
generating a first slope value between a first data point included in the set of data points and a second data point included in the set of data points; and determining that a bitrate combination associated with the second data point should be included in the subset of bitrate combinations based on the first slope value (Paragraphs [0009] [0077] figure 5A; computing a first slope value between a first data point included in the first subset of data points and a second data point included in the first subset of data point).
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 Dahl by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Katsavounidis, for the predictable result of performing one or more convex hull operations across the first set of data points to compute a first subset of data points that are optimized in order to maximize the average quality (Katsavounidis – paragraphs [0007] [0009]).
Regarding claim 17, Dahl and Katsavounidis disclose all the limitations of claim 17; therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm EST..
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 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 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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights