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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LU; Xiuping et al. US 20150200750 A1 (hereafter Lu) and in further view of Oran; David R. US 20080062990 A1 (hereafter Oran).
Regarding claim 1, “a method of augmenting satellite television streams, the method comprising: receiving, by a satellite television server system, an original video stream; encoding, by the satellite television server system, the original video stream as a compressed video stream, wherein encoding the original video stream results in lost data from the original video stream; encoding, by the satellite television server system, the lost data from the original video stream as an augmentation video stream; broadcasting, by the satellite television server system, the compressed video stream via a satellite television network; receiving, by the satellite television server system, a request from a remote device via the Internet to enhance the compressed video stream with the augmentation video stream; and transmitting, by the satellite television server system, and in response to the request, the augmentation video stream to the remote device via the Internet” Lu para 31-39, 46-54 disclosing a satellite network for receiving, at a server, an original video stream 105 in Fig. 2 and transmitting via a network to a client device in Fig. 2b wherein the client device will transmit a request for missing data from the video stream and wherein the network monitors will cause the retransmission of missing data to the requesting client device using two separate channels of communication 260 and 255. With respect to a compressed video stream, Lu para 25-32 teaches an MPEG encoder which a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer comprises compressing the video stream but Lu does not specifically reference an Internet backchannel.
In an analogous art, Oran teaches utilizing an IP unicast transmission for retransmission lost packets to a client device (para 15-20 and 39-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lu for a satellite network for receiving, at a server, an original video stream and transmitting a compressed said video stream via a network to a client device wherein the client device will transmit a request for missing data from said video stream and wherein the network monitors will cause the retransmission of missing data to the requesting client device using two separate channels of communication by further incorporating known elements of Oran’s invention for utilizing an IP unicast transmission for retransmission lost packets to a client device because the mere combination of known elements according to their known functions are a predictable solution for retransmitting data to a client device using two separate known channels.
Regarding claim 2, “wherein the augmentation video stream is further encoded with synchronization data that can be used to synchronize the augmentation video stream with the compressed video stream” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 wherein Lu para 25-32 teaches the client/receiver is able to synchronize the packets into the correct sequence for delivery to the application in the proper order and correct time and wherein the packets comprise headers with encoding fields.
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the synchronization data comprises a time delay estimate between when the remote device will receive the augmentation video stream and when the remote device will receive the compressed video stream” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-2 wherein Lu para 25-34, 49 teaches a network monitor is provided for monitoring data network quality via a data network interface and, for example, collecting current network data statistics for input to a retransmit decision maker, for example, packet loss rate, available bandwidth, and round-trip delay. The retransmit decision maker, in turn, may provide an input to the reliable media protocol (RMP) module so that a decision on retransmission may be based on current network conditions according to the data network statistical data collected at the network monitor and selectively decide to retransmit a packet based on its priority and the monitored network conditions.
Regarding claim 4, “wherein the compressed video stream is broadcast on a delay compared to the transmission of the augmentation video stream, and the time delay estimate is based on the delay between the compressed video stream broadcast and the augmentation video stream transmission” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-3 wherein Lu para 25-32, 49 teaches a network monitor is provided for monitoring data network quality via a data network interface and, for example, collecting current network data statistics for input to a retransmit decision maker, for example, packet loss rate, available bandwidth, and round-trip delay. The retransmit decision maker, in turn, may provide an input to the reliable media protocol (RMP) module so that a decision on retransmission may be based on current network conditions according to the data network statistical data collected at the network monitor and selectively decide to retransmit a packet based on its priority and the monitored network conditions. With respect to a compressed video stream, Lu para 25-32 teaches an MPEG encoder which a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer comprises compressing the video stream.
Regarding claim 5, “wherein the augmentation video stream comprises a stream of reconstruction packets, the compressed video stream comprises a stream of frames, and the synchronization data for each reconstruction packet comprises a timestamp representing an estimated time when a frame that corresponds to the reconstruction packet will be received by the remote device” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-4 wherein Lu para 4, 42 teaches a packet comprises frames; see also para 25-34, 49 teaches a network monitor is provided for monitoring data network quality via a data network interface and, for example, collecting current network data statistics for input to a retransmit decision maker, for example, packet loss rate, available bandwidth, and round-trip delay. The retransmit decision maker, in turn, may provide an input to the reliable media protocol (RMP) module so that a decision on retransmission may be based on current network conditions according to the data network statistical data collected at the network monitor and selectively decide to retransmit a packet based on its priority and the monitored network conditions. Lu para 25-32, 49 teaches a network monitor is provided for monitoring data network quality via a data network interface and, for example, collecting current network data statistics for input to a retransmit decision maker, for example, packet loss rate, available bandwidth, and round-trip delay. The retransmit decision maker, in turn, may provide an input to the reliable media protocol (RMP) module so that a decision on retransmission may be based on current network conditions according to the data network statistical data collected at the network monitor and selectively decide to retransmit a packet based on its priority and the monitored network conditions. With respect to a compressed video stream, Lu para 25-32 teaches an MPEG encoder which a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer comprises compressing the video stream.
Regarding claim 6, “wherein the augmentation video stream comprises a stream of reconstruction packets, the compressed video stream comprises a stream of compressed video frames, and each reconstruction packet corresponds to two or more sequential compressed video frames” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-5 wherein Lu para 4, 42 teaches a packet comprises frames; With respect to a compressed video stream, Lu para 25-32 teaches an MPEG encoder which a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer comprises compressing the video stream.
Regarding claim 7, “wherein encoding the lost data from the original video stream comprises: determining, for successive sets of two or more compressed video frames, a loss factor from which at least a portion of the lost data for each of the two or more compressed video frames can be reconstructed when the loss factor is decoded; and encoding, for each successive set of two or more compressed video frames, the loss factor in a corresponding reconstruction packet” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-5 wherein Lu para 32 teaches a sequence gap wherein the transmitter (sender, server) 200 maintains a cache 235 of the most recent packets that were sent to its receivers/clients. One or more receivers/clients 201 receive the data packets from the transmitter/server 200 and may detect sequence gaps in the received data packets using the sequence number field present in the RTP (FIG. 6) or MPEG transport stream (TS) header (FIG. 7). If the receiver 201 detects a sequence gap, the receiver 201 sends a request on the TCP-based control channel 255 for selective retransmission of the missing data packets. Lu para 4, 42 teaches a packet comprises frames; With respect to a compressed video stream, Lu para 25-32 teaches an MPEG encoder which a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer comprises compressing the video stream.
Regarding claim 8, “wherein each successive set of two or more compressed video frames overlap with a preceding set and a succeeding set by at least one compressed video frame” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-7 wherein Lu para 32 teaches a sequence gap wherein the transmitter (sender, server) 200 maintains a cache 235 of the most recent packets that were sent to its receivers/clients. One or more receivers/clients 201 receive the data packets from the transmitter/server 200 and may detect sequence gaps in the received data packets using the sequence number field present in the RTP (FIG. 6) or MPEG transport stream (TS) header (FIG. 7). If the receiver 201 detects a sequence gap, the receiver 201 sends a request on the TCP-based control channel 255 for selective retransmission of the missing data packets.
Regarding claim 9, “wherein each successive set of two or more compressed video frames are contiguous with a preceding set and a succeeding set” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-8 wherein Lu para 32 teaches a sequence gap wherein the transmitter (sender, server) 200 maintains a cache 235 of the most recent packets that were sent to its receivers/clients. One or more receivers/clients 201 receive the data packets from the transmitter/server 200 and may detect sequence gaps in the received data packets using the sequence number field present in the RTP (FIG. 6) or MPEG transport stream (TS) header (FIG. 7). If the receiver 201 detects a sequence gap, the receiver 201 sends a request on the TCP-based control channel 255 for selective retransmission of the missing data packets.
Regarding claim 10, “wherein encoding the original video stream as the compressed video stream comprises applying one or more compression parameters to each original video frame of the original video stream, and the loss factor for each successive set of two or more compressed video frames is based at least in part on the one or more compression parameters applied to the corresponding original video frames” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-8 wherein Lu para 32 teaches a sequence gap wherein the transmitter (sender, server) 200 maintains a cache 235 of the most recent packets that were sent to its receivers/clients. One or more receivers/clients 201 receive the data packets from the transmitter/server 200 and may detect sequence gaps in the received data packets using the sequence number field present in the RTP (FIG. 6) or MPEG transport stream (TS) header (FIG. 7). If the receiver 201 detects a sequence gap, the receiver 201 sends a request on the TCP-based control channel 255 for selective retransmission of the missing data packets. See also para 35 the reliable media protocol (RMP) scheme in the present invention operates via RMP module 230, 231 between the real-time application/RTP/MPEG TS and UDP/TCP/IP through the assistance of parser 210 for prioritization and improved retransmit decision making with the assistance of network monitors 270 and 271. At server/transmitter 200, an abstraction-layer header parser, for example, Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) header parser 210 operates on locally provided or network provided digital video data 205. NAL header parser 210 outputs a priority and the data for real-time protocol (RTP) packetization 220. Moreover, a network monitor 270 recovers current network 110 statistics and outputs control data to retransmit decision maker 275 to aid RMP module 230. For example, in furtherance to the example of an enhancement layer assigned a medium priority versus a base layer assigned a high priority, RMP module 230 will retransmit the high priority base layer data and not transmit the medium priority enhancement layer data in the face of an available bandwidth detected by network monitor 270 below a given threshold value.
Regarding claim 11, “wherein the loss factor for each successive set of two or more compressed video frames is based on similar lost data in each of the two or more compressed video frames” is further rejected as discussed in the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding the device claims 12-15, the claims are grouped and rejected with the method claims 1-11 because the steps of the method claims are met by the disclosure of the apparatus and methods of the reference(s) as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-11 and because the steps of the method are easily converted into elements of computer implemented device by one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to dependent claim 13, wherein the prior art discussed in the rejection of claims 1-11 disclose a satellite network and a client device/receiver, the prior art does not reference a satellite antenna and RF tuner, however, the examiner takes Official Notice that the a satellite antenna and RF tuner are components typical to a satellite receiver/device.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFONSO CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3950. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10am to 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. 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.
/ALFONSO CASTRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights