DETAILED ACTION
This application has been examined. Claims 1-14 are pending.
In order to facilitate communication with the Examiner and expedite the prosecution of the instant application the Applicant is requested to submit written authorization to authorize the USPTO to communicate via electronic mail. The written authorization must be compliant with the language from MPEP § 502.03.
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 .
Priority
This application claims benefits of priority from Foreign Application JP2024-025139 (JAPAN) filed February 22, 2024.
The effective date of the claims described in this application is February 22, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 14 is directed towards ‘a computer program’. Upon inspection of the Applicant Specifications Page 24 the Examiner concludes said computer program is nothing more than software components.
Since a computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer, the computer program itself is not a process and USPTO personnel should treat a claim for a computer program, without the computer-readable medium needed to realize the computer program’s functionality, as nonstatutory functional descriptive material.
The Examiner notes that software does not inherently execute itself and can exist in perfect operating order without any requirement of a computing device.
There is no positive recitation in the claims that indicate wherein the claimed server components which are comprised entirely of software are being actively and currently executed/invoked by a computer or processor.
The Examiner notes that a computer does not act according to the computer instructions conveyed by said medium until 1) the said instructions are embedded or stored in the computer’s persistent storage memory and 2) are assigned a storage address that is locatable by a computer processor and 3) are invoked for execution by the computer processor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3,6-10,13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azoulas (USPGPUB 2020/0162796) further in view of Zhang (USPGPUB 2020/0382803) further in view of Jin (USPGPUB 2024/0223819)
Regarding Claim 1
Azoulas Figure 2,Paragraph 100 disclosed wherein the web server(s) 700 select a particular media server of the media sources 300 to which a given broadcaster connects to provide the broadcaster's live stream of digital content, and the web server(s) 700 also select a particular media source of the media sources 300 to which a given viewer connects to receive a copy of a given broadcaster's live stream.
Azoulas disclosed (re. Claim 1) an information processing device comprising one or more hardware processors configured to:
acquire a first stream transmitted from a transmitting device; (Azoulas-Paragraph 231, A viewer may send a request to the web server(s) 700 (via the API) to receive a copy of the broadcaster's live stream,Paragraph 84, a first broadcaster client device 100A provides a first live stream of digital content 102A)
relay the acquired first stream to the first server device when the sending request is not received, the first server device being configured to store an input stream into a storage device, (Azoulas-Paragraph 223,broadcaster stream create process then submits a “stream create” request to the web server(s) 700… The web server(s) 700 in turn runs the broadcast media server selection algorithm (e.g., see FIGS. 4A and 4B) to select a media server to which the broadcaster client device connects, Paragraph 231, the viewer stream source selection algorithm provides an endpoint (e.g., address or URL) to the viewer client device to establish a video communication channel with either a particular media server of the RTMP media server pool 320, or a particular server of the RTMP CDN 340.)
While Azoulas substantially disclosed the claimed invention Azoulas does not disclose (re. Claim 1) relay the acquired first stream to both a first server device and a second server device when a sending request requesting to send a stream from the second server device to a receiving device is received
the second server device being configured to send a stream with a delay time not greater than a second delay time that is less than a first delay time with which a stream stored in the storage device is distributed.
Zhang Figure 1,Figure 6, Paragraph 94 disclosed wherein a video capture device creates two individual paths of encoding. One path is main encoding and the other is backup encoding.
Zhang disclosed (re. Claim 1) relay the acquired first stream to both a first server device and a second server device (Zhang-Figure 6, Paragraph 94, Paragraph 119,two individual paths of encoding may be created. One path is main encoding and the other is backup encoding. )
Azoulas and Zhang are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding streaming video content. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Zhang into Jin. The motivation for the said combination would have been enable the video outputted by the backup transcoder may be connected to the output video stream from the moment when the main transcoder is down and achieve seamless switchover (Zhang-Paragraph 47-48)
While Azoulas substantially disclosed the claimed invention Azoulas does not disclose (re. Claim 1) relay the acquired first stream to both a first server device and a second server device when a sending request requesting to send a stream from the second server device to a receiving device is received
the second server device being configured to send a stream with a delay time not greater than a second delay time that is less than a first delay time with which a stream stored in the storage device is distributed.
Jin Paragraph 58 disclosed wherein client generates the video play request based on a play operation triggered by the user for the free view angle video and transmits the video play request to the media server.
Jin Paragraph 104 disclosed wherein the target video stream after the view angle is switched is forwarded through the low-latency server, the client can quickly obtain and play the target video stream, the view angle switching speed is improved.
Jin disclosed (re. Claim 1) a sending request requesting to send a stream from the second server device to a receiving device is received (Jin-Paragraph 58, Paragraph 104,client generates the video play request to receive the target video stream from the low-latency server )
Azoulas and Jin are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding streaming video content. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Jin into Azoulas. The motivation for the said combination would have been so that the video switching fluency is ensured, and the user viewing experience is improved.(Jin-Paragraph 104)
Azoulas-Zhang-Jin disclosed (re. Claim 1) relay the acquired first stream to both a first server device and a second server device (Zhang-Figure 6, Paragraph 94, two individual paths of encoding may be created. One path is main encoding and the other is backup encoding. ) when a sending request requesting to send a stream from the second server device to a receiving device is received (Jin-Paragraph 58, Paragraph 104,client generates the video play request to receive the target video stream from the low-latency server )
the second server device being configured to send a stream with a delay time not greater than a second delay time that is less than a first delay time with which a stream stored in the storage device is distributed.(Jin-Paragraph 51, The low-latency server may refer to a server having a low-latency communication protocol. The low-latency server may forward video streams between the media server and the client to implement the low-latency video transmission.)
Regarding Claim 9
Claim 9 (re. system) recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 1. Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10
Claim 10 (re. system) recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 1. Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Azoulas-Zhang-Jin disclosed (re. Claim 10) the information processing device according to claim 1;(Azoulas- web server(s) 700 ) and the transmitting device. Paragraph 84, a first broadcaster client device 100A provides a first live stream of digital content 102A)
Regarding Claim 13
Claim 13 (re. method) recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 1. Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14
Claim 14 (re. computer program product) recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 1. Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2
Azoulas-Zhang-Jin disclosed (re. Claim 2) one or more relaying hardware processors configured to relay the first stream; (Azoulas- Paragraph 101,the control server 500 implements a number of services/processes that govern functionality of other servers ) and
one or more switching hardware processors configured to start at least either of the one or more relaying hardware processors and the second server device when the sending request is received.(Azoulas-Paragraph 150, the web server(s) 700 essentially serve as a controllable switch to couple the viewer client device 200A to one of an RTMP media server 320, the RTMP CDN 340 (which is communicatively coupled to the RTMP media server(s) in a virtual private network 330), a WebRTC media server 360 and the HLS serve architecture 360 to receive a copy of broadcaster's live stream of digital content.)
Regarding Claim 3
Azoulas-Zhang-Jin disclosed (re. Claim 3) wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to relay, when the sending request is not received, the acquired first stream to the first server device but not to the second server device.(Azoulas-Paragraph 223, broadcaster stream create process then submits a “stream create” request to the web server(s) 700… The web server(s) 700 in turn runs the broadcast media server selection algorithm (e.g., see FIGS. 4A and 4B) to select a media server to which the broadcaster client device connects)
The Examiner notes wherein Azoulas does not explicitly disclose ‘relaying the acquired first stream to a first server device but not to a second server device when the sending request is not received’.
Official Notice (see MPEP 2144.03) is taken that at the time of the invention it would have been well-known in the networking art to omit the additional function/step of relaying to a second server when not required/not requested by the viewer. In the context of the Azoulas-Zhang-Jin, it would have been obvious to omit/skip/bypass the function/step of ‘relaying the acquired first stream to a second server device’ when the sending request is not received in order to conserver computer and network resources.
Regarding Claim 6
Azoulas-Zhang-Jin disclosed (re. Claim 6) wherein the receiving device is a device configured to receive and display a stream sent from the second server device, (Jin-Paragraph 51, The low-latency server may refer to a server having a low-latency communication protocol. The low-latency server may forward video streams between the media server and the client to implement the low-latency video transmission.) and the one or more hardware processors are configured to relay, when the sending request is received from the receiving device, (Jin-Paragraph 58, Paragraph 104,client generates the video play request to receive the target video stream from the low-latency server )the acquired first stream to both the first server device and the second server device. (Zhang-Figure 6, Paragraph 94, Paragraph 119,two individual paths of encoding may be created. One path is main encoding and the other is backup encoding. )
Regarding Claim 7
Azoulas-Zhang-Jin disclosed (re. Claim 7) wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured to relay, when the sending request is received from the transmitting device, (Jin-Paragraph 58, Paragraph 104,client generates the video play request to receive the target video stream from the low-latency server ) the acquired first stream to both the first server device and the second server device. (Zhang-Figure 6, Paragraph 94, Paragraph 119,two individual paths of encoding may be created. One path is main encoding and the other is backup encoding. )
Regarding Claim 8
Azoulas-Zhang-Jin disclosed (re. Claim 8) an information processing system comprising: the information processing device according to claim 1; (see rejection of Claim 1) and a third server device configured to acquire the first stream from the storage device in the first server device, and distribute the acquired first stream. (Azoulas-Paragraph 223, broadcaster stream create process then submits a “stream create” request to the web server(s) 700… The web server(s) 700 in turn runs the broadcast media server selection algorithm (e.g., see FIGS. 4A and 4B) to select a media server to which the broadcaster client device connects)
Claim(s) 4-5,11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azoulas (USPGPUB 2020/0162796) further in view of Zhang (USPGPUB 2020/0382803) further in view of Jin (USPGPUB 2024/0223819) further in view of
Tsahharov (USPGPUB 20250141947)
Regarding Claim 4,11
While Azoulas-Zhang-Jin substantially disclosed the claimed invention Azoulas-Zhang-Jin does not disclose (re. Claim 4,11) determine, when the sending request is received, whether it is possible to send the acquired stream with a delay time not greater than the second delay time;
and adjust a parameter on encoding performed by one or more encoding hardware processors configured to encode a stream, when it is determined that it is not possible to send the acquired stream with a delay time not greater than the second delay time.
Tsahhirov Paragraph 32 disclosed wherein for interactions with a playback tool, a media server proxy uses a first streaming media protocol (“SMP”). On the other hand, for interactions with a remote server, the media server proxy uses a second SMP, which is different than the first SMP. The first SMP can have different capabilities than the second SMP in one or more respects. Compared to the second SMP, the first SMP has higher expected minimum latency.
Tsahhirov disclosed (re. Claim 4,11) determine, when the sending request is received,whether it is possible to send the acquired stream with a delay time not greater than the second delay time; (Tsahhirov-Paragraph 71, If a requested outgoing media segment is not yet available to the media server proxy, the media server proxy can request encoded data for the media segment from the remote server according to the second SMP)
and adjust a parameter on encoding performed by one or more encoding hardware processors configured to encode a stream, (Tsahhirov-Paragraph 28, the remote server or media server proxy is well-positioned to determine available bandwidth and adjust the bit rate of media segments) when it is determined that it is not possible to send the acquired stream with a delay time not greater than the second delay time.
Azoulas and Tsahhirov are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding streaming video content. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Tsahhirov into Azoulas. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable a remote server and media server proxy to adapt the bit rate of media segments delivered over a lossy network, even when a playback tool uses a conventional SMP that supports only client-side rate control processes.(Tsahhirov-Paragraph 5)
Regarding Claim 5,12
Azoulas-Zhang-Jin-Tsahhirov disclosed (re. Claim 5,12) wherein the one or more encoding hardware processors is configured to perform encoding using an adjusted parameter. (Tsahhirov-Paragraph 28, the remote server or media server proxy is well-positioned to determine available bandwidth and adjust the bit rate of media segments)
Conclusion
Examiner’s Note: In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREG C BENGZON whose telephone number is (571)272-3944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4:30 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 Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREG C BENGZON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights