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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: steps in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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) 1-3, 7, 9, 11, 14-15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galdy et al. US 2016/0034306
Galdy discloses:
1. and under similar rationales 11 and 20. A method, implemented in a computing device comprising at least one hardware processor and at least one memory coupled to the at least one hardware processor (Fig. 16: processor 1601, memory 1603), the method comprising video processing operations that provide improved computing flexibility and fault tolerance (0119), the method comprising: receiving a subtask of a video processing task from a coordinator computing system, the subtask comprising one or more operations of the video processing task, or instructions derived at least in part therefrom, and an identifier of a video fragment to be processed for the subtask (Figs. 1, 11, 12; 0040; 0081); requesting at least the video fragment (Fig. 6: 602; Fig. 7); receiving the at least the video fragment (Fig. 6: 606; Fig. 7); executing the operations or instructions on the at least the video fragment (Fig. 6: 608; Fig. 7); and encoding the at least the video fragment after, or in conjunction with, the executing the operations or instructions to provide a processed video fragment, thereby providing improved fault tolerance as compared with executing the video processing task as a single task (Figs. 1, 11; 0065-8; 0119).
20. additionally has a step for requesting at least the video fragment based on the identifier (Figs. 1, 7, 11, 12; 0040; 0081); a step for receiving the at least the video fragment in response to the request (Figs. 1, 7, 11, 12; 0040; 0081)
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the encoded video fragment comprises a streamable fragment having a duration corresponding to a unit of video streaming (0065-9).
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the encoded video fragment is streamable without further encoding or reformatting and is formatted according to MPEG-DASH or HLS (0039).
7. The method of claim 1, wherein encoding the portion of the video file comprises using a target bitrate that corresponds to a predefined quality level for adaptive streaming (0058).
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the encoded video fragment is stored at a location selected from the group consisting of the coordinator computing system, the worker, a client device, and an external streaming repository (0003; 0039-43; 0049; Fig 1 and 11: video source 110, stream coordinator 170, worker cluster 150).
14. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 11, wherein the instructions to encode the video fragment comprise instructions to encode the video fragment into a plurality of bitrates suitable for adaptive streaming (0039-43).
15. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 11, wherein the instructions to encode the video fragment comprise inserting segment headers conforming to the ISO Base Media File Format or MPEG-TS format (0039; 0042).
19. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 11, wherein the instructions to encode the video fragment are configured to maintain streamability by encoding the video fragment with a predetermined duration and at a fixed bitrate (0039-43).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galdy in view of Kurtzer et al. US 10970113
4. The method of claim 1,
Galdy does not explicitly disclose the following, however Kurtzer teaches further comprising receiving, at the worker, a container header associated with the video file, the container header enabling the worker to formulate a byte-range request for the portion of the video file (10:33-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order for the policies may be generally defined to maximize performance, minimize cost, minimize data transfer, and/or other parameters (Kutzer 10:33-63)
Claim(s) 5, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galdy in view of Melenboim et al. WO 2017/130035
5. The method of claim 1,
Galdy does not explicitly disclose the following, however Melenboim teaches further comprising determining, at the worker, that additional frames are required to encode the fragment, and requesting one or more additional byte ranges of the video file in response to the determination (pg. 10: 10-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to reduce the use of postMessage, each web worker thread executes its associated set of frames as received from the server (Melenboim pg. 10:10-25)
13. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 11,
Galdy does not explicitly disclose the following, however Melenboim teaches wherein the instructions to receive the video fragment comprise instructions to request the video fragment using a byte-range request based on information provided in the subtask (pg. 10: 10-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to reduce the use of postMessage, each web worker thread executes its associated set of frames as received from the server (Melenboim pg. 10:10-25)
Claim(s) 10, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galdy in view of Sasikumar et al. US 8407322
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the worker requests metadata from a location separate from the coordinator computing system (Figs 7-10),
Galdy does not explicitly disclose the following, however Sasikumar teaches the metadata comprising frame timing information or encoding constraints (10:4-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to have Metadata, for example, can define one or more execution constraints for a particular block of code, e.g., where and when the code block is to be executed, the type of runtime which is to be used, and the preferred memory, storage, and security characteristics of an executing computer (Sasikumar 10:4-32)
18. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 11,
Galdy does not explicitly disclose the following, however Sasikumar teaches wherein the instructions further comprise requesting operational instructions for the subtask separately from the video fragment. (10:4-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to have Metadata, for example, can define one or more execution constraints for a particular block of code, e.g., where and when the code block is to be executed, the type of runtime which is to be used, and the preferred memory, storage, and security characteristics of an executing computer (Sasikumar 10:4-32)
Claim(s) 6, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galdy in view of Suchland US 10534525
6. The method of claim 1,
Galdy does not explicitly disclose the following, however Suchland teaches wherein the instructions received at the worker include one or more operations to apply a video effect to the portion of the video file, the effect selected from the group consisting of a transition, a visual filter, and text overlay (1:58-2:11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order for the user may perform edit actions (e.g., crop, filters, text overlays, video transitions, voiceovers, etc.) to a low-resolution copy of the original captured media, and can immediately see how the edit actions affect the low-resolution copy (Suchland 1:58-2:11).
17. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 11,
Galdy does not explicitly disclose the following, however Suchland teaches wherein the instructions to execute the operations on the video fragment comprise applying one or more video effects selected from a group consisting of filters, transitions, and text overlays (1:58-2:11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order for the user may perform edit actions (e.g., crop, filters, text overlays, video transitions, voiceovers, etc.) to a low-resolution copy of the original captured media, and can immediately see how the edit actions affect the low-resolution copy (Suchland 1:58-2:11).
Claim(s) 8, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galdy in view of Nandakumar et al. US 10997426
8. The method of claim 1,
Galdy does not explicitly disclose the following, however Nandakumar teaches wherein the portion of the video file assigned to the worker comprises a sequence of video frames that begins with a reference frame (8:58-9:19; 12:66-13:32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order for a key frame may be encoded such that additional data and/or information is not needed to decode the key frame (Nandakumar 8:58-9:19; 12:66-13:32).
16. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 11, , and if not, requesting additional video data from the coordinator computing system (Figs. 7: 2, 11: 150, 130; 0040; 0081).
Galdy does not explicitly disclose the following, however Nandakumar teaches wherein the instructions further comprise determining whether the video fragment is decodable based on reference frame dependencies (8:58-9:19; 12:66-13:32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order for a key frame may be encoded such that additional data and/or information is not needed to decode the key frame (Nandakumar 8:58-9:19; 12:66-13:32).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galdy in view of WO 2019/227736 Hereinafter WO ‘736
12. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 11,
Galdy does not explicitly disclose the following, however WO ‘736 teaches wherein the instructions to receive the subtask further comprise instructions to retrieve, from the coordinator computing system, metadata associated with the video fragment, including container-level header information (pg. 13 second to last par.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to summarize the capacity and offset to try and include the complete binary data from the server request (WO ‘736 pg. 13 2nd and 3rd to last par.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W BECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7301. The examiner can normally be reached flexible usually 10-6.
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, Joseph G Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/JOSEPH W BECKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights