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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it fails to comply with MPEP 608.01(b). Specifically, it is a copy of claim 1. Pursuant to MPEP 608.01(b), an abstract must be a narrative summary of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are rejected because the use of “and/or”, especially when the claims contain multiple instances of “and/or,” creates ambiguity regarding the exact scope and boundaries of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-11 and 14-19 are rejected for depending on rejected claims 1, 12, or 13.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pujadas et al. (US 20180343292), in view of Lohmar et al. (US 20140149557).
With regards to claim 1, Pujadas teaches a media stream transmission method, wherein the method is applied to a media server, and the method comprises:
receiving a first request for media data from a first terminal; (…receiving a request to receive said received stream of data from a second client… (i.e., media server receiving the first request); [0030], Pujadas)
determining a second request according to downlink information and transmitting the second request to a second terminal; wherein the downlink information is configured to indicate request load information and/or …, the request load information comprises a quantity and/or frequency of a plurality of third requests received within a preset time period, and the plurality of third requests comprise the first request;
(Pujadas discloses the client sends a request to the messaging server to receive a stream from the session. The messaging server accepts the request, and sends a request the SFU to generate an SDP offer. Pujadas further teaches the server requests a second routing device … to be used to forward the received stream (i.e., receiving a first request and then determining and transmitting a second request). Pujadas further teaches allocation decisions based on capacity and avoiding overload, timers and allocation window (i.e., determining a second request based on request load information). Pujadas further teaches …first parameter defines a maximum number of streams of data…, hundreds of clients/subscribers’ requests to receive the stream that are accumulated and allocated over time, block size, timeout windows (i.e., quantity and/or frequency of a plurality of third requests received within a present time period. Plurality of requests corresponds to plurality of third requests comprising the first request); [0021-0022, 0031-0032, 0051-0052, 0071, 0081-0082], Pujadas)
receiving, from the second terminal, a first media data message being a response to the second request; wherein the first media data message comprises a first media stream; (server performing the following steps: receiving a stream of data from a first client… (i.e., receiving media data comprising media stream in response to second request); [0030], Pujadas)
and transmitting, to the first terminal, a second media data message being a response to the first request, wherein the second media data message comprises a second media stream… (The server forwards the received stream of data to the second client; [0031], Pujadas).
Pujadas does not teach determining the subsequent request according to downlink information that is configured to indicate downlink network quality-of-service information, nor does Pujadas teach the first media stream comprising the second media stream
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lohmar teaches adaptive streaming. Lohmar discloses it can be determined in step 604 that the available bitrate along the link between the server 200 and the clients has changed. In this case, the manipulating component 204 manipulates the manifest file in step 606 by adjusting the media bitrate candidates based on the (new) available bitrate along the link. Lohmar further teaches …provides a reduced list of representations, i.e. media bitrate candidates of reduced values, when the server 200 or the DPI node 300 is aware about congestion on the link to the mobile terminals… Accordingly, Lohmar teaches determining media-stream delivery based on downlink network quality information (QoS), including available bitrate and congestion conditions between the server and client devices; [0065, 0071], Lohmar
Lohmar further teaches a server encoding content streams at different media bitrates, thereby generating multiple encoded versions of the same content stream for delivery to client. Lohmar further teaches selecting among such representations based on net conditions and available bandwidth, Thus Lohmar teaches that a transmitted stream selected from among multiple encoded versions derived from the same underlying media stream (i.e., the first media stream comprises the second media stream)); [0053, 0059, 0067] Lohmar.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Pujadas and Lohmar to improve media delivery quality and adapt stream transmission to changing network conditions between the server and clients.
With regards to claim 2, Pujadas teaches through Lohmar, the media stream transmission method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the second request according to the downlink information comprises:
updating the first request to the second request or determining the second request based on the plurality of third requests according to the downlink information. (Pujadas teaches receiving requests from multiple clients to receive a stream of data and determining subsequent routing requests for stream forwarding based on those requests. Specifically, the server requests from clients to receive the stream and request routing devices for forwarding the stream to those clients. Further, Pujadas describes hundreds of client requests being processed and allocated among multiple SFUs the server’s subsequent routing requests are determined based on an aggregated set of stream-receive requests rather that a single request. Thus, Pujadas teaches determining the second request based on plurality of the third requests. [0030-0031, 0071], Pujadas)
With regards to claim 3,
Pujadas teaches the limitations of claim 3 as applied to claims 1 and 2 except for wherein the downlink network quality- of-service information comprises a quality-of-service value; and the updating the first request to the second request comprises: updating a first code stream quality in the first request to a second code stream quality to obtain a second request, if the quality-of-service value is less than a quality-of-service threshold; wherein the second request comprises the second code stream quality, and the second code stream quality is lower than the first code stream quality.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lohmar teaches wherein the downlink network quality- of-service information comprises a quality-of-service value; and the updating the first request to the second request comprises: updating a first code stream quality in the first request to a second code stream quality to obtain a second request, if the quality-of-service value is less than a quality-of-service threshold; wherein the second request comprises the second code stream quality, and the second code stream quality is lower than the first code stream quality (Lohmar teaches receiving network quality information associated with the server-to-client link, including available bitrate and congestion information. Lohmar further teaches that when network conditions deteriorate and available bitrate decreases, higher bitrate representations are removed and lower bitrate representations are used instead. Thus, Lohmar teaches updating a first stream quality to a lower stream quality when a quality-of-service value falls below a threshold; [0057, 0065, 0071], Lohmar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Pujadas and Lohmar to adapt stream delivery to available bandwidth and congestion conditions, thereby improving streaming reliability.
With regards to claim 4, Pujadas teaches through Lohmar, the media stream transmission method according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of third requests comprise a plurality of first requests for requesting the same media data, and the determining the second request based on the plurality of third requests comprises:
selecting the plurality of first requests from the plurality of third requests, wherein the media data targeted by the plurality of first requests is the same (Pujadas teaches a plurality of clients requesting receipt of the same stream of data from a first client. The messaging server processes these requests and allocate routing resources for delivery of that same stream to the requesting clients. Thus, Pujadas teaches selecting requests associated with the same media data from among a plurality of requests; [0031-0031, 0071], Pujadas);
and taking any one of the plurality of first requests as the second request (Pujadas teaches that numerous clients request receipt of the same stream of data originating from a single client. Because, the requests are directed to identical media data, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that any one of the requests could be used as a representative request for allocation and forwarding purposes, since each request seeks delivery of the same stream and would result in the same forwarding operation; [0047, 0071], Pujadas).
With regards to claim 5, Pujadas teaches through Lohmar, the media stream transmission method according to claim 2, wherein the determining the second request based on the plurality of third requests comprises:
taking the first request as the second request, if a request frequency of the plurality of third requests is less than a frequency threshold; (Pujadas teaches that when stream allocation resources remain available (first parameter > 0) and the routing device remain valid, the messaging servers continues using the current routing assignment without obtaining a new routing device. The claimed request frequency less than a frequency threshold corresponds to Pujadas’ condition in which request volume remains within the reserved allocation capacity represented by the first parameter and associated reservation period. Under those conditions, the server continues using the existing request path, corresponding to taking the first request as the second request; [0030-0031], Pujadas)
and filtering out third requests other than the first request from the plurality of third requests, and taking the first request as the second request, if the request frequency of the plurality of third requests is greater than or equal to the frequency threshold (Pujadas teaches receiving a large number of requests for the same stream of data from multiple clients and managing such request volume using allocation-state, block-size reservation, and timeout mechanisms to avoid excessive requests to the load balancer. The claimed request frequency greater than or equal to a frequency threshold corresponds to Pujadas’ situation where request volume becomes sufficiently high to invoke such request-management mechanism. Pujadas’ use of reservation and state management techniques to reduce unnecessary load-balancer interactions corresponds to filtering out third requests other than the first request from the plurality of third requests. Because the requests are directed to the same stream of data, a representative request may be used for subsequent allocation and forwarding operation, corresponding to taking the first request as the second request; [0047,0071, 0081-0082], Pujadas).
With regards to claim 6,
Pujadas teaches the limitations of claim 6 as applied to claim 1 except for wherein the transmitting the second media data message to the first terminal comprises: determining code stream requirement information according to the first request, wherein the code stream requirement information is configured to indicate resolution information of the media data requested by the first terminal; comparing the code stream requirement information with a plurality of pieces of code stream actual information respectively to obtain a plurality of comparison results; wherein the plurality of pieces of code stream actual information comprise a plurality of pieces of code stream actual information in a plurality of first media streams used by the media server to respond to the first request, and the code stream actual information is configured to indicate resolution information of media data in the first media streams; selecting the second media stream from the plurality of first media streams according to the plurality of comparison results and transmitting a third media data message including the second media stream to the first terminal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lohmar teaches wherein the transmitting the second media data message to the first terminal comprises: determining code stream requirement information according to the first request, wherein the code stream requirement information is configured to indicate resolution information of the media data requested by the first terminal (Lohmar teaches receiving a client request for a content stream. Because the request identifies the desired stream representation among multiple available encoded representations, the server determines information indicating the requested stream characteristics from the received request. This corresponds to the claimed determining code stream requirement information according to the first request, and the associated quality/bitrate information corresponds to the claimed resolution information of the media data requested by the first terminal; [0053-0054, 0059], Lohmar).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lohmar teaches comparing the code stream requirement information with a plurality of pieces of code stream actual information respectively to obtain a plurality of comparison results; wherein the plurality of pieces of code stream actual information comprise a plurality of pieces of code stream actual information in a plurality of first media streams used by the media server to respond to the first request, and the code stream actual information is configured to indicate resolution information of media data in the first media streams (Lohmar teaches maintaining multiple encoded versions of the content having different bitrate characteristics. The available media bitrate candidates correspond to the claimed plurality of pieces of code stream actual information, and evaluating those candidates against the requested stream quality corresponds to comparing the code stream requirement information with a plurality of code stream actual information to obtain comparison results; [0053, 0065, 0068-0070], Lohmar).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lohmar teaches selecting the second media stream from the plurality of first media streams according to the plurality of comparison results (Lohmar teaches selecting a particular encoded representation from multiple available representations based on an evaluation of bitrate and streaming conditions. The selected representation corresponds to the claimed second media stream, and the multiple available representations correspond to the claimed plurality of first media streams; [0006-0007, 0038, 0065], Lohmar).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lohmar teaches transmitting a third media data message including the second media stream to the first terminal (Lohmar teaches transmitting the selected content stream to the requesting client after receiving the request. The transmitted content stream corresponds to the claimed third media data message including the second media stream transmitted to the first terminal; [0054-0056], Lohmar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Pujadas and Lohmar to provide a stream having appropriate quality characteristics, to improve bandwidth utilization, and to enhance streaming performance.
With regards to claim 7,
Pujadas teaches the limitations of claim 7 as applied to claims 1 and 6 except for wherein the selecting the second media stream from the plurality of first media streams according to the plurality of comparison results comprises: taking the first media stream corresponding to target code stream information as the second media stream, if the plurality of comparison results comprise that the code stream requirement information is the same as the target code stream information; wherein the target code stream information is one of the plurality of pieces of code stream actual information in the plurality of first media streams.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lohmar teaches wherein the selecting the second media stream from the plurality of first media streams according to the plurality of comparison results comprises: taking the first media stream corresponding to target code stream information as the second media stream, if the plurality of comparison results comprise that the code stream requirement information is the same as the target code stream information; wherein the target code stream information is one of the plurality of pieces of code stream actual information in the plurality of first media streams (Lohmar teaches providing multiple encoded representation of content having different stream characteristics, such as media bitrate candidates. Lohmar further teaches evaluating the available representations and selecting an appropriate representation from among the available representations based on the requested stream characteristics. The available representations correspond to the claimed plurality of first media streams, the associated bitrate characteristics correspond to the claimed plurality of pieces of code stream actual information, and the selected representation corresponds to the claimed taking the first media stream corresponding to target code stream information as the second media stream when the code stream requirement information matches the target code stream information; [0006-0007, 0053, 0059, 0065, 0070], Lohmar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Pujadas and Lohmar to provide a stream having appropriate quality characteristics, improve bandwidth utilization, and enhance streaming performance.
With regards to claim 8,
Pujadas teaches the limitations of claim 8 as applied to claims 1 and 6 except for wherein the selecting the second media stream from the plurality of first media streams according to the plurality of comparison results comprises: updating the code stream requirement information to code stream downgrade information, if all of the plurality of comparison results indicate that the code stream requirement information is different from target code stream information; wherein the code stream downgrade information is configured to indicate the code stream requirement information after the resolution is lowered, and the target code stream information is one of the plurality of pieces of code stream actual information in the plurality of first media streams; and matching the code stream downgrade information with the plurality of pieces of code stream actual information in the plurality of first media streams, and selecting the first media stream corresponding to the code stream actual information that matches the code stream downgrade information as the second media stream, if the matching is successful.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lohmar teaches wherein the selecting the second media stream from the plurality of first media streams according to the plurality of comparison results comprises: updating the code stream requirement information to code stream downgrade information, if all of the plurality of comparison results indicate that the code stream requirement information is different from target code stream information; wherein the code stream downgrade information is configured to indicate the code stream requirement information after the resolution is lowered, and the target code stream information is one of the plurality of pieces of code stream actual information in the plurality of first media streams (Lohmar teaches adaptive streaming using multiple encoded representations having different bitrate characteristics. When a desired representation cannot be supported, Lohmar teaches removing higher bitrate candidates and utilizing lower bitrate representations based on current network conditions, corresponding to updating the code stream requirement information to code stream downgrade information; [0053, 0065, 0070-0071], Lohmar).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lohmar teaches matching the code stream downgrade information with the plurality of pieces of code stream actual information in the plurality of first media streams, and selecting the first media stream corresponding to the code stream actual information that matches the code stream downgrade information as the second media stream, if the matching is successful (Lohmar teaches evaluating the available representations against the adjusted stream requirements, corresponding to matching the code stream downgrade information with the plurality of pieces of code stream actual information. Upon identifying an appropriate lower-quality representation, Lohmar selects and downloads that representation, corresponding to selecting the first media stream matching the code stream downgrade information as the second media stream; [0006-0007, 0053, 0065, 0070], Lohmar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Pujadas and Lohmar to provide a stream having appropriate quality characteristics, improve bandwidth utilization, and enhance streaming performance.
With regards to claim 10, Pujadas teaches through Lohmar, the media stream transmission method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving a first request for media data from a first terminal comprises: receiving the first request for media data from the first terminal based on a peer-to-peer data channel of web real-time communication. (Pujadas teaches WebRTC peer-to-peer communication and WebRTC data channels, and further teaches client requests for media stream, the requests are reasonably communicated using WebRTC data channel functionality; [0002-0003, 0020], Pujadas).
With regards to claim 11, Pujadas teaches through Lohmar, the media stream transmission method according to claim 1, wherein:
the first terminal is a media data subscriber (Pujadas teaches a client that requests and receives a stream of data from a session. Such a client corresponds to the claimed first terminal being a media data subscriber; [0020], Pujadas);
and the second terminal is a media data publisher (Pujadas teaches a client that originates and transmits a stream of data into the media session. Such a client corresponds to the claimed second terminal being a media data publisher; [0014], Pujadas).
With regards to claims 12 and 13, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 1, therefore, claims 12 and 13 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
With regards to claim 14, Pujadas teaches through Lohmar, an electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein computer-readable instructions are stored in the memory, and the computer-readable instructions when being executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the media stream transmission method according to claim 1 (… a server for real-time data streaming in a media session configured to perform the method embodiments steps of the first aspect of the invention… a computer program product is one embodiment that has a computer-readable medium including computer program instructions encoded thereon that when executed on at least one processor in a computer system causes the processor to perform the operations indicated herein as embodiments of the invention… the software programs included as part of the invention may be embodied in a computer program product that includes a computer useable medium. For example, such a computer usable medium can include a readable memory device, such as a hard drive device, a flash memory device, a CD-ROM, a DVD/ROM, or a computer diskette, having computer readable program code segments stored thereon. The computer readable medium can also include a communications link, either optical, wired, or wireless, having program code segments carried thereon as digital or analog signals; [0039-0040, 0087], Pujadas).
With regards to claims 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 14, therefore, claims 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 14.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pujadas in view of Lohmar and further in view of CN 113891036 (hereinafter CN036).
With regards to claim 9, Pujadas teaches through Lohmar, the media stream transmission method according to claim 8, wherein the method further comprises:
transmitting a fourth request to the second terminal… for responding to the first request (Pujadas teaches transmitting requests from the messaging server to another device participating in media streaming operations. The server-generated signaling messages correspond to the claimed transmitting a fourth request to the second terminal. Pujadas further teaches media session request-response signaling between endpoints mediated by media server, corresponding to transmitting newly published media data for responding to the original first request; [0014, 0020, 0030-0031], Pujadas)
Pujadas does not teach if the code stream downgrade information fails to match with any one of the plurality of pieces of code stream actual information in the plurality of first media streams ...
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lohmar teaches, if the code stream downgrade information fails to match with any one of the plurality of pieces of code stream actual information in the plurality of first media streams (Lohmar teaches evaluating available media representations are selecting among available bitrate candidates. When no available representation satisfies the adjusted stream requirements, this corresponds to the claimed condition that the code stream downgrade information fails to match any of the plurality of pieces of code stream actual information; [0065, 0071], Lohmar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Pujadas and Lohmar to provide a stream having appropriate quality characteristics, improve bandwidth utilization, and enhance streaming performance.
Pujadas and Lohmar do not teach wherein the fourth request is configured to notify the second terminal to publish new media data with a preset resolution.
However, in the same field of endeavor, CN036 teaches, wherein the fourth request is configured to notify the second terminal to publish new media data with a preset resolution. (CN036 teaches outputting a feedback request containing a resolution adjustment to an AI chip, wherein the AI chip performs a video construction according to the feedback request and outputs compressed data. The feedback request corresponds to the claimed fourth request configured to notify the second terminal, and the video construction and output of compressed data according to the requested resolution correspond to publishing new media data with a present resolution; [Page 2, paragraph beginning with “The present invention…”], CN036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Pujadas and Lohmar with the teachings of CN036 to improve adaptability of media delivery in scenarios where available encoded streams are insufficient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAYEEM KAZI whose telephone number is (571)397-2559. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/EMMANUEL L MOISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights