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 § 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 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because computer-readable media can be comprised of transitory subject matter. Examiner suggests including “non-transitory” to overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 5,629,936).
Regarding claim 1, 8, 15, Lee discloses A computer-implemented method for managing a queue of video streaming packets, comprising:
receiving a video streaming packet from a video streaming source; (col 16 lines 64-67);
removing, from the queue, a queued packet based on a size of the queue achieving a threshold and based on an index assigned to the queued packet being within a drop interval from an adjacent queued packet that is not dropped from the queue (col. 9 lines 8-26; fig. 5 (buffer full) if buffer is full, drop packet at the position the pointer indicates, and then update the pointer. pointer state changes whenever a packet is dropped; when a pointer state is 1 and an arriving packet causes overflow, the packet at the front of the buffer is dropped and the pointer state changes to 2); and
appending the video streaming packet to the queue (fig. 5 append the packet).
Regarding claim 2, 9, 16, Lee discloses increasing the drop interval to an increased drop interval based on no packets in the queue being within the drop interval from an associated adjacent queued packet in the queue (col. 13 lines 42-65).
Regarding claim 3, 10, 17, Lee discloses receiving a second video streaming packet from the video streaming source;
removing, from the queue, a second queued packet based on the size of the queue achieving a threshold and based on a second index assigned to the second queued packet being within the increased drop interval from a second adjacent queued packet that is not dropped from the queue; and
appending the second video streaming packet to the queue (col. 13 lines 42-65).
Regarding claim 4, 11,18, Lee discloses wherein the drop interval is an exponent of two, and wherein the increased drop interval is a next exponent of two (col. 13 lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 5, 12, 19, Lee discloses determining whether the queued packet is within the drop interval based at least in part on whether the index modulo the drop interval is greater than zero (col. 13 lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 7, 14, Lee discloses removing a first queued packet from the queue for processing (fig. 16 dropping packets).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 5,629,936) in view of Francini (US 2012/0182870).
Regarding claim 6, 13, 20, Lee does not specifically disclose decreasing the drop interval based at least in part on detecting the size of the queue being less than a second threshold.
However, Francini discloses decreasing the drop interval based at least in part on detecting the size of the queue being less than a second threshold ([0094]). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the decreased drop interval of Francini into the system of Lee in order to improve video quality and optimize latency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL HYUN HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at (571)272-4195. 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.
/MICHAEL H HONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights