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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page of the Remakes, Applicant argued “However, Saxton simply teaches that content may be received from different content providers at different encoder components. See Saxton at 37. Saxton fails to teach that each of the encoder components receive different versions of a content item or that each of the encoder components process the received content in order to produce and output different versions of the content item. In fact, Saxton is silent as to whether the content being received at the different encoder components belongs to the same content item. Essentially, the Office Action's mapping relies on unsupported assumptions to equate distinct content streams from separate providers with "versions" of a content item. Saxton is devoid of any teaching or suggestion of "determining, by a computing device, a first version of a portion of a content item located at a first video processing device and a second version of the portion of the content item located at a second video processing device."”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Saxton (in [0017]) discloses encoder components in the different availability zones can receive separate input signals from the content provider such that encoder components receive the same content from different sources, therefore, when the content transmitted to the first encoder (considered as clamed “a first version of a portion of a content item located at a first video processing device”), the same content can be transmitted to a second encoder (considered as clamed “a second version of the portion of the content item located at a second video processing device”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saxton et al. (US 20200213592 A1) (Saxton).
Regarding claim 1, Saxton discloses A method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, a first version of a portion of a content item located at a first video processing device and a second version of the portion of the content item located at a second video processing device;
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
causing, based on a service metric associated with the first version of the portion of the content item, the first video processing device to send the first version of the portion of the content item; and
[0068]-[0069] and Fig. 5 for At decision block 506 and decision block 508 the system determines whether the quality metric of active encoder component (“service metric”) is above a quality threshold like an established minimal quality for a segment, a value of one or more previously encoded segments and If at decision block 508, the quality threshold is met or exceeded, at block 510, the routine 500 selects the current encoded component to transmit.
causing the second video processing device to refrain from sending the second version of the portion of the content item.
[0069]-[0072] if the encoder component is not the active component (decision block 506) or the threshold quality is not met (decision block 508), at blocks 512-518, the encoder component can drop, delete or otherwise prevent the encoded component from being transmitted. At block 520, the routine 500 terminates or is repeated for the next segment to be encoded.
Regarding claim 2, Saxton discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the service metric is based on one or more packaging errors associated with the first version of the portion of the content item.
[0075] The quality of the input signal from the source to the encoder component can be a measure of factors from the input signal that can affect the output of the encoded segment. Such measures can include a determination of whether an input packet error was detected or whether a decoding error was detected in processing the incoming signal.
Regarding claim 3, Saxton discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the first video processing device is part of a first network and the second video processing device is part of a second network.
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
Regarding claim 4, Saxton discloses The method of claim 3, further comprising:
receiving the service metric from a video quality component associated with the first network; and
[0018] Prior to encoding the content segment or after encoding a content segment (prior to transmission), at least some portion of the encoder components can exchange quality metric information (“service metric”).
receiving a second service metric from a video quality component associated with the second network, wherein the second service metric is based on one or more packaging errors associated with the second version of the portion of the content item.
[0056] The availability of an encoder can be expressed based on a value attributed to error rates (“on one or more packaging errors”) exhibited by the encoder component 122.
Regarding claim 5, Saxton discloses The method of claim 3, wherein the computing device is part of the first network or the second network.
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
Regarding claim 6, Saxton discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the first version of the portion of the content item and the second version of the portion of the content item originate from a content source.
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
Regarding claim 7, Saxton discloses The method of claim 6, wherein the first video processing device generates the first version of the portion of the content item based on processing the portion of the content item originating from the content source and the second video processing device generates the second version of the portion of the content item based on processing the portion of the content item originating from the content source.
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
Regarding claim 8, Saxton discloses An apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; and
fig. 3 for processing 304
a memory storying processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
determine a first version of a portion of a content item located at a first video processing device and a second version of the portion of the content item located at a second video processing device;
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
cause, based on a service metric associated with the first version of the portion of the content item, the first video processing device to send the first version of the portion of the content item; and
[0068]-[0069] and Fig. 5 for At decision block 506 and decision block 508 the system determines whether the quality metric of active encoder component (“service metric”) is above a quality threshold like an established minimal quality for a segment, a value of one or more previously encoded segments and If at decision block 508, the quality threshold is met or exceeded, at block 510, the routine 500 selects the current encoded component to transmit.
cause the second video processing device to refrain from sending the second version of the portion of the content item.
[0069]-[0072] if the encoder component is not the active component (decision block 506) or the threshold quality is not met (decision block 508), at blocks 512-518, the encoder component can drop, delete or otherwise prevent the encoded component from being transmitted. At block 520, the routine 500 terminates or is repeated for the next segment to be encoded.
Regarding claim 9, Saxton discloses The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the service metric is based on one or more packaging errors associated with the first version of the portion of the content item.
[0075] The quality of the input signal from the source to the encoder component can be a measure of factors from the input signal that can affect the output of the encoded segment. Such measures can include a determination of whether an input packet error was detected or whether a decoding error was detected in processing the incoming signal.
Regarding claim 10, Saxton discloses The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the first video processing device is part of a first network and the second video processing device is part of a second network.
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
Regarding claim 11, Saxton discloses The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to: receive the service metric from a video quality component associated with the first network; and
[0018] Prior to encoding the content segment or after encoding a content segment (prior to transmission), at least some portion of the encoder components can exchange quality metric information (“service metric”).
receive a second service metric from a video quality component associated with the second network, wherein the second service metric is based on one or more packaging errors associated with the second version of the portion of the content item.
[0056] The availability of an encoder can be expressed based on a value attributed to error rates (“on one or more packaging errors”) exhibited by the encoder component 122.
Regarding claim 12, Saxton discloses The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the apparatus is part of the first network or the second network.
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
Regarding claim 13, Saxton discloses The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the first version of the portion of the content item and the second version of the portion of the content item originate from a content source.
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
Regarding claim 14, Saxton discloses The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the first video processing device generates the first version of the portion of the content item based on processing the portion of the content item originating from the content source and the second video processing device generates the second version of the portion of the content item based on processing the portion of the content item originating from the content source.
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
Regarding claim 15, Saxton discloses One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor- executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
determine, by a computing device, a first version of a portion of a content item located at a first video processing device and a second version of the portion of the content item located at a second video processing device;
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
cause, based on a service metric associated with the first version of the portion of the content item, the first video processing device to send the first version of the portion of the content item; and
[0068]-[0069] and Fig. 5 for At decision block 506 and decision block 508 the system determines whether the quality metric of active encoder component (“service metric”) is above a quality threshold like an established minimal quality for a segment, a value of one or more previously encoded segments and If at decision block 508, the quality threshold is met or exceeded, at block 510, the routine 500 selects the current encoded component to transmit.
cause the second video processing device to refrain from sending the second version of the portion of the content item.
[0069]-[0072] if the encoder component is not the active component (decision block 506) or the threshold quality is not met (decision block 508), at blocks 512-518, the encoder component can drop, delete or otherwise prevent the encoded component from being transmitted. At block 520, the routine 500 terminates or is repeated for the next segment to be encoded.
Regarding claim 16, Saxton discloses The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the service metric is based on one or more packaging errors associated with the first version of the portion of the content item.
[0075] The quality of the input signal from the source to the encoder component can be a measure of factors from the input signal that can affect the output of the encoded segment. Such measures can include a determination of whether an input packet error was detected or whether a decoding error was detected in processing the incoming signal.
Regarding claim 17, Saxton discloses The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the first video processing device is part of a first network and the second video processing device is part of a second network.
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
Regarding claim 18, Saxton discloses The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to:
receive the service metric from a video quality component associated with the first network; and
[0018] Prior to encoding the content segment or after encoding a content segment (prior to transmission), at least some portion of the encoder components can exchange quality metric information (“service metric”).
receive a second service metric from a video quality component associated with the second network, wherein the second service metric is based on one or more packaging errors associated with the second version of the portion of the content item.
[0056] The availability of an encoder can be expressed based on a value attributed to error rates (“on one or more packaging errors”) exhibited by the encoder component 122.
Regarding claim 19, Saxton discloses The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, wherein the computing device is part of the first network or the second network.
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
Regarding claim 20, Saxton discloses The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the first version of the portion of the content item and the second version of the portion of the content item originate from a content source.
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
Regarding claim 21, Saxton discloses The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 20, wherein the first video processing device generates the first version of the portion of the content item based on processing the portion of the content item originating from the content source and the second video processing device generates the second version of the portion of the content item based on processing the portion of the content item originating from the content source.
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
Regarding claim 22, Saxton discloses A system comprising:
a first video processing device configured to generate, based on processing a portion of a content item, a first version of the portion of the content item;
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
a second video processing device configured to generate, based on processing the portion of the content item, a second version of the portion of the content item;
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
a computing device configured to: determine the first version of the portion of the content item located at the first video processing device and the second version of the portion of the content item located at the second video processing device;
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
cause, based on a service metric associated with the first version of the portion of the content item, the first video processing device to send the first version of the portion of the content item; and
[0068]-[0069] and Fig. 5 for At decision block 506 and decision block 508 the system determines whether the quality metric of active encoder component (“service metric”) is above a quality threshold like an established minimal quality for a segment, a value of one or more previously encoded segments and If at decision block 508, the quality threshold is met or exceeded, at block 510, the routine 500 selects the current encoded component to transmit.
cause the second video processing device to refrain from sending the second version of the portion of the content item.
[0069]-[0072] if the encoder component is not the active component (decision block 506) or the threshold quality is not met (decision block 508), at blocks 512-518, the encoder component can drop, delete or otherwise prevent the encoded component from being transmitted. At block 520, the routine 500 terminates or is repeated for the next segment to be encoded.
Regarding claim 23, Saxton discloses The system of claim 22, wherein the service metric is based on one or more packaging errors associated with the first version of the portion of the content item.
[0075] The quality of the input signal from the source to the encoder component can be a measure of factors from the input signal that can affect the output of the encoded segment. Such measures can include a determination of whether an input packet error was detected or whether a decoding error was detected in processing the incoming signal.
Regarding claim 24, Saxton discloses The system of claim 22, wherein the first video processing device is part of a first network and the second video processing device is part of a second network.
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
Regarding claim 25, Saxton discloses The system of claim 24, wherein the computing device is further configured to: receive the service metric from a video quality component associated with the first network; and
[0018] Prior to encoding the content segment or after encoding a content segment (prior to transmission), at least some portion of the encoder components can exchange quality metric information (“service metric”).
receive a second service metric from a video quality component associated with the second network, wherein the second service metric is based on one or more packaging errors associated with the second version of the portion of the content item.
[0056] The availability of an encoder can be expressed based on a value attributed to error rates (“on one or more packaging errors”) exhibited by the encoder component 122.
Regarding claim 26, Saxton discloses The system of claim 24, wherein the computing device is part of the first network or the second network.
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
Regarding claim 27, Saxton discloses The system of claim 22, wherein the portion of the content item originate from a content source.
FIG. 4A-4C and [0037] for encoder component 122A (“a first video processing device”) receives content to be encoded from content provider 130A and encoder component 122B (“(“a second video processing device”)”) receives content to be encode from content provider 130B.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIRA MONSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-0995. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM-5 PM.
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, John W Miller can be reached at 5712727353. 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.
/SAMIRA MONSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights