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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on November 24, 2025 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form).
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 1-3, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reznik et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0195204) in view of Bedi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0366084).
Regarding claim 1, Reznik et al. discloses a video stream playback method (see paragraphs 0002, 0004, 0112), comprising:
obtaining current screen brightness of a playback device (see paragraphs 0218-0219; brightness of a screen of the device);
determining target definition of a video stream based on the current screen resolution (see paragraphs 0220-0221; The multimedia content may be processed at a plurality of different rates. For example, each rate may be a function of at least one of: an encoding rate of the multimedia content, a spatial resolution of the multimedia content, a temporal resolution of the multimedia content); and
obtaining and playing back the video stream at the target definition (see paragraphs 0220, 0223; the multimedia content selected according to the viewing parameter is received by the device and displayed on the screen).
However, Reznik et al. is silent as to determining target definition of a video stream based on the current screen brightness.
Bedi et al. discloses determining target definition of a video stream based on the current screen brightness (see paragraphs 0024-0033, 0054; determines a resolution mode based on the brightness level).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Reznik et al. with the teachings of Bedi et al., the motivation being to request and play video streams at the selected definition.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2, 18 and 21, Reznik et al. and Bedi et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1, 14 and 15). Bedi et al. discloses wherein the determining target definition of a video stream based on the current screen brightness comprises:
determining, based on the current screen brightness and a mapping relationship between preset screen brightness and preset definition, the preset definition corresponding to the current screen brightness as the target definition of the video stream (see paragraphs 0054-0055, 0028-0033 an fig. 2).
Regarding claims 3, 19 and 22, Reznik et al. and Bedi et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1, 14 and 15). Bedi et al. discloses wherein the determining target definition of a video stream based on the current screen brightness comprises:
determining the target definition to be first definition if the current screen brightness is greater than a preset brightness threshold (see paragraph 0028); and
determining the target definition to be second definition if the current screen brightness is not greater than the preset brightness threshold, wherein the first definition is higher than the second definition (see paragraph 0033).
Claims 4, 5, 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reznik et al. and Bedi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Albrecht et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0005898).
Regarding claims 4, 20 and 23, Reznik et al. and Bedi et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1, 14 and 15). Reznik et al. discloses wherein the determining target definition of a video stream on the current screen brightness comprises:
determining whether viewing parameter has changed (see paragraph 0222).
Bedi et al. discloses determining, if a change in the screen brightness is determined, the target definition based on changed screen brightness and current definition (see paragraph 0062).
However, Reznik et al. and Bedi et al. are silent as to determining whether screen brightness has changed.
Albrecht et al. discloses determining whether screen brightness has changed (see paragraph 0068).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Reznik et al. and Bedi et al. with the teachings of Albrecht et al., the motivation being to indicate brightness setting.
Regarding claim 5, Reznik et al., Bedi et al. and Albrecht et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 4). Bedi et al. discloses wherein the determining, if a change in the screen brightness is determined, the target definition based on changed screen brightness and current definition comprises:
determining the target definition to be third definition, if it is determined that the current screen brightness is greater than a preset brightness threshold, the changed screen brightness is not greater than the preset brightness threshold (see paragraphs 0028-0033, 0031-0032, 0063), and the current definition is higher than a first preset definition threshold, wherein the third definition is not higher than the first preset definition threshold (see paragraphs 0033, 0063); or
determining the target definition to be fourth definition, if it is determined that the current screen brightness is not greater than a preset brightness threshold, the changed screen brightness is greater than the preset brightness threshold (see paragraph 0063), and the current definition is lower than a second preset definition threshold, wherein the fourth definition is not lower than the second preset definition threshold, and the first preset definition threshold is lower than the second preset definition threshold (see paragraph 0033).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reznik et al., Bedi et al. and Albrecht et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0021928).
Regarding claim 6, Reznik et al., Bedi et al. and Albrecht et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 4). However, Reznik et al., Bedi et al. and Albrecht et al. are silent as to wherein the obtaining the video stream at the target definition comprises: determining whether a preset definition switching condition is met; and obtaining the video stream at the target definition if the preset definition switching condition is met.
Lee discloses wherein the obtaining the video stream at the target definition comprises:
determining whether a preset definition switching condition is met (see paragraph 0060); and
obtaining the video stream at the target definition if the preset definition switching condition is met (see paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Reznik et al., Bedi et al. and Albrecht et al. with the teachings of Lee, the motivation being to ensure that adaptive quality switching can occur while maintaining playback, rather than blindly executing every desired quality change.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reznik et al., Bedi et al., Albrecht et al. and Lee as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0097405).
Regarding claim 7, Reznik et al., Bedi et al., Albrecht et al. and Lee discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 4). However, Reznik et al., Bedi et al., Albrecht et al. and Lee are silent as to wherein the determining whether a preset definition switching condition is met comprises at least one of: determining whether a network state of the playback device meets a preset network condition; or determining whether a performance state of the playback device meets a preset performance condition.
Lee et al. discloses wherein the determining whether a preset definition switching condition is met comprises at least one of:
determining whether a network state of the playback device meets a preset network condition (see paragraphs 0060-0062); or
determining whether a performance state of the playback device meets a preset performance condition.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Reznik et al., Bedi et al., Albrecht et al. and Lee with the teachings of Lee et al., the motivation being to express sufficient network state.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reznik et al. and Bedi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0021928).
Regarding claim 8, Reznik et al., and Bedi et al., discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 4). However, Reznik et al. and Bedi et al are silent as to, wherein the obtaining the video stream at the target definition comprises: determining, based on playback buffer, whether definition of the video stream can be switched without causing lag; and obtaining the video stream at the target definition if it is determined that the definition of the video stream can be switched without causing lag.
Lee discloses wherein the obtaining the video stream at the target definition comprises: determining, based on playback buffer, whether definition of the video stream can be switched without causing lag (see paragraph0056, 0060-0061); and
obtaining the video stream at the target definition if it is determined that the definition of the video stream can be switched without causing lag (see paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Reznik et al., Bedi et al. and Lee with the teachings of Lee et al., the motivation being to seamless playback during quality changes.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reznik et al., Bedi et al. and Lee as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Mahvash et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0036766) and Jyske et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0291386).
Regarding claim 9, Reznik et al., Bedi et al. and Lee discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 8). Lee discloses determining the loaded/current playback buffer amount (see paragraph 0056, 0060-0061).
However, Reznik et al., Bedi et al. and Lee are silent as to determining current buffer level, determining a target playback buffer data amount for the video stream; and comparing the current playback buffer data amount against the target playback buffer data amount, and determining that the definition of the video stream can be switched without causing lag if the current playback buffer data amount is greater than or equal to the target playback buffer data amount.
Mahvash et al. discloses updates a current buffer level (buffer time) after downloading the current video segment (see paragraphs 0048-0049).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Reznik et al., Bedi et al. and Lee with the teachings of Mahvash et al., the motivation being to provide adaptive bitrate streaming.
Jyske et al. discloses determining a target playback buffer data amount for the video stream (see paragraphs 0042-0045); and
comparing the current playback buffer data amount against the target playback buffer data amount, and determining that the definition of the video stream can be switched without causing lag if the current playback buffer data amount is greater than or equal to the target playback buffer data amount (see paragraphs 0043-0045).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Reznik et al., Bedi et al., Lee and Mahvash et al. with the teachings of Jyske et al., the motivation being to supply the data-amount representation.
Regarding claim 10, Reznik et al., Bedi et al., Lee, Mahvash et al. and Jyske et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 9). Jyske et al. discloses
wherein the determining a target playback buffer data amount for the video stream comprises:
determining the target playback buffer data amount for the video stream based on an average video bit rate (see paragraphs 0047-0048, 0042-0045).
Lee discloses a preset buffer duration of the video stream (see paragraph 0060-0061).
Regarding claim 11, Reznik et al., Bedi et al., Lee, Mahvash et al. and Jyske et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 9). Mahvash et al. discloses determining that the definition of the video stream cannot be switched without causing lag if the current playback buffer data amount is determined to be continuously less than the target playback buffer data amount for a preset duration, and stopping performing switch of the definition of the video stream (see paragraphs 0051-0056).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reznik et al. and Bedi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0117996).
Regarding claim 12, Reznik et al. and Bedi et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). However, Reznik et al. and Bedi et al. are silent as to
wherein the determining target definition of a video stream based on the current screen brightness comprises: normalizing the current screen brightness, and determining the target definition of the video stream based on normalized current screen brightness.
Huang et al. discloses normalizing the current screen brightness, and determining the target definition of the video stream based on normalized current screen brightness (see paragraphs 0032-0034).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Reznik et al. and Bedi et al. with the teachings of Huang et al., the motivation being to place the brightness input on a common scale suitable for comparison with such relative thresholds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NNENNA NGOZI EKPO whose telephone number is (571)270-1663. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 10:00am - 6:30pm, TH-F 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
NNENNA EKPO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/NNENNA N EKPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 September 1, 2026.
Prosecution Insights