DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on August 7, 2025. Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority based on U.S. provisional applications 63/416,173 filed on October 14, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on August 7, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,418,702 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application- 19/293,409
US Patent 12,418,702 B2
Claim 1. A method for intelligent video playing, the method comprising: in a computerized system comprising a memory and a computer processor: arranging, by the processor, a plurality of video frames based on a plurality of data items, each data item of the plurality of data items associated with one or more groups of pictures (GOPs); rendering and playing, by the processor, the arranged video frames on an output display.
Claim 1. A method for intelligent video playing, the method comprising: in a computerized system comprising a memory and a computer processor: arranging, by the processor, a plurality of video frames based on one or more data items, the data items associated with one or more groups of pictures (GOPs) and one or more video playing settings; automatically adjusting, by the processor, a playing speed based on a video acceleration database, the database associating a plurality of playing rates to numbers of accumulated frames within one or more memory buffers; and rendering and playing, by the processor, the arranged video frames on an output display, wherein the playing of the arranged video frames is performed based on the adjusted playing speed.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, comprising automatically adjusting, by the processor, a playing speed based on a video acceleration database, the database associating a plurality of playing rates to numbers of accumulated frames within one or more memory buffers; and wherein the playing of the arranged video frames is performed based on the adjusted playing speed.
(Claim 1 above includes the claimed limitations of Claim 2 of the Instant Application)
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the frames are included in a first memory buffer; and wherein the arranging comprises appending, by the processor, a second memory buffer with one or more of the frames included in the first memory buffer, the appending based on a requested video playing direction
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the frames are included in a first memory buffer; and wherein the arranging comprises appending, by the processor, a second memory buffer with one or more of the frames included in the first memory buffer, the appending based on a requested video playing direction.
Claim 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the arranging comprises omitting, by the processor, one or more of the frames; and wherein the rendering and playing do not include the omitted frames
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the arranging comprises omitting, by the processor, one or more of the frames; and wherein the rendering and playing do not include the omitted frames.
Claim 5. The method of claim 4, comprising calculating, by the processor, a frame drop factor, the factor determining, for a given playing speed, a number of frames to be omitted; and wherein the omitting of one or more of the frames is performed based on the frame drop factor.
Claim 4. The method of claim 3, comprising calculating, by the processor, a frame drop factor, the factor determining, for a given playing speed, a number of frames to be omitted; and wherein the omitting of one or more of the frames is performed based on the frame drop factor.
Claim 6. The method of claim 4, comprising: for one or more of the frames, calculating, by the processor, an information score, the information score quantifying an amount information lost if a given frame is omitted from a set of frames; and wherein the omitting of one or more of the frames is performed based on the information scores.
Claim 5. The method of claim 3, comprising: for one or more of the frames, calculating, by the processor, an information score, the information score quantifying an amount information lost if a given frame is omitted from a set of frames; and wherein the omitting of one or more of the frames is performed based on the information scores.
Claim 7. The method of claim 6, wherein the information score comprises a frame size, and wherein the method comprises normalizing, by the processor, each of the information scores.
Claim 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the information score comprises a frame size, and wherein the method comprises normalizing, by the processor, each of the information scores.
Claim 8. The method of claim 6, comprising: calculating, by the processor, a dispersion score for one or more of the frames, the dispersion score measuring a distribution of one or more of the frames within a time interval; wherein the omitting of one or more of the frames is performed based on the information scores and based on the dispersion scores.
Claim 7. The method of claim 5, comprising: calculating, by the processor, a dispersion score for one or more of the frames, the dispersion score measuring a distribution of one or more of the frames within a time interval; wherein the omitting of one or more of the frames is performed based on the information scores and based on the dispersion scores.
Claim 9. The method of claim 8, wherein the dispersion score includes a distance between one or more of the frames and a reference frame; and wherein the omitting of one or more of the frames is performed for a first time interval, and wherein the reference frame is in a second time interval.
Claim 8. The method of claim 7, wherein the dispersion score includes a distance between one or more of the frames and a reference frame; and wherein the omitting of one or more of the frames is performed for a first time interval, and wherein the reference frame is in a second time interval.
Claim 10. The method of claim 2, wherein the adjusting of a playing speed is performed based on a reference video playing of a remote computer.
Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the adjusting of a playing speed is performed based on a reference video playing of a remote computer.
Claim 11. A computerized system for intelligent video playing, the system comprising: a memory, and a computer processor configured to: arrange a plurality of video frames based on a plurality of data items, each data item of the plurality of data items associated with one or more groups of pictures (GOPs); render and play the arranged video frames on an output display.
Claim 10. A computerized system for intelligent video playing, the system comprising: a memory, and a computer processor configured to: arrange a plurality of video frames based on one or more data items, the data items associated with one or more groups of pictures (GOPs) and one or more video playing settings; adjust a playing speed based on a video acceleration database, the database associating a plurality of playing rates to numbers of accumulated frames within one or more memory buffers; and render and play the arranged video frames on an output display, wherein the playing of the arranged video frames is performed based on the adjusted playing speed.
Claim 12. The computerized system of claim 11, wherein the processor is to: adjust a playing speed based on a video acceleration database, the database associating a plurality of playing rates to numbers of accumulated frames within one or more memory buffers; and wherein the playing of the arranged video frames is performed based on the adjusted playing speed.
(Claim 10 above includes the claimed limitations of Claim 12 of the Instant Application)
Claim 13. The computerized system of claim 11, wherein one or more of the frames are included in a first memory buffer; and wherein the arranging comprises appending a second memory buffer with one or more of the frames included in the first memory buffer, the appending based on a requested video playing direction.
Claim 11. The computerized system of claim 10, wherein one or more of the frames are included in a first memory buffer; and wherein the arranging comprises appending a second memory buffer with one or more of the frames included in the first memory buffer, the appending based on a requested video playing direction.
Claim 14. The computerized system of claim 11, wherein the arranging comprises omitting one or more of the frames; and wherein the rendering and playing do not include the omitted frames.
Claim 12. The computerized system of claim 10, wherein the arranging comprises omitting one or more of the frames; and wherein the rendering and playing do not include the omitted frames.
Claim 15. The computerized system of claim 14, wherein the processor is to: calculate a frame drop factor, the factor determining, for a given playing speed, a number of frames to be omitted; and wherein the omitting of one or more of the frames is performed based on the frame drop factor.
Claim 13. The computerized system of claim 12, wherein the processor is to: calculate a frame drop factor, the factor determining, for a given playing speed, a number of frames to be omitted; and wherein the omitting of one or more of the frames is performed based on the frame drop factor.
Claim 16. The computerized system of claim 14, wherein the processor is to: for one or more of the frames, calculate an information score, the information score quantifying an amount information lost if a given frame is omitted from a set of frames; and wherein the omitting of one or more of the frames is performed based on the information scores.
Claim 14. The computerized system of claim 12, wherein the processor is to: for one or more of the frames, calculate an information score, the information score quantifying an amount information lost if a given frame is omitted from a set of frames; and wherein the omitting of one or more of the frames is performed based on the information scores.
Claim 17. The computerized system of claim 16, wherein the information score comprises a frame size, and wherein the method comprises normalizing, by the processor, each of the information scores.
Claim 15. The computerized system of claim 14, wherein the information score comprises a frame size, and wherein the method comprises normalizing, by the processor, each of the information scores.
Claim 18. The computerized system of claim 16, wherein the processor is to: calculate a dispersion score for one or more of the frames, the dispersion score measuring a distribution of one or more of the frames within a time interval; and wherein the omitting of one or more of the frames is performed based on the information scores and based on the dispersion scores.
Claim 16. The computerized system of claim 14, wherein the processor is to: calculate a dispersion score for one or more of the frames, the dispersion score measuring a distribution of one or more of the frames within a time interval; and wherein the omitting of one or more of the frames is performed based on the information scores and based on the dispersion scores.
Claim 19. The computerized system of claim 18, wherein the dispersion score includes a distance between one or more of the frames and a reference frame; and wherein the omitting of one or more of the frames is performed for a first time interval, and wherein the reference frame is in a second time interval.
Claim 17. The computerized system of claim 16, wherein the dispersion score includes a distance between one or more of the frames and a reference frame; and wherein the omitting of one or more of the frames is performed for a first time interval, and wherein the reference frame is in a second time interval.
Claim 20. The computerized system of claim 12, wherein the adjusting of a playing speed is performed based on a reference video playing of a remote computer.
Claim 18. The computerized system of claim 10, wherein the adjusting of a playing speed is performed based on a reference video playing of a remote computer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of Patent No. US 12,418,702 B2.
Regarding claim 1, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the Instant Application is anticipated by claim 1 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 2, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 1 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 3, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 2 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 4, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 3 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 5, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 4 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 6, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 5 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 7, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 6 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 8, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 7 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 9, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 8 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 10, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 9 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 11, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 10 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 12, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 10 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 13, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 11 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 14, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 12 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 15, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 13 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 16, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 16 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 14 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 17, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 15 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 18, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 16 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 19, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 17 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
Regarding claim 20, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of the Instant Application is recited in claim 18 of the Patent No. 12,418,702.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LUO (US 2023/0071445 A1) referred to as LUO hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, LUO discloses a method for intelligent video playing (Fig. 7), the method comprising:
in a computerized system (Fig. 12, Par. [0169] The terminal 1200 may be: a smartphone, a tablet computer, a Moving Picture Experts Group Audio Layer III (MP3) player, a Moving Picture Experts Group Audio Layer IV (MP4) player, a notebook computer, or a desktop computer. The terminal 1200 may also be referred to as other names such as user equipment, a portable terminal, a laptop terminal, or a desktop terminal) comprising a memory and a computer processor (Par. [0170] the terminal 1200 includes: a processor 1201 and a memory 1202):
arranging, by the processor, a plurality of video frames (Par. [0072] an operation of scrolling and updating the page content by the user is associated with the frame displayed in the video playback area. The video frame is displayed according to the drag operation of the user. When the user scrolls the video playback area to different positions on the page, video frames of different video progress will be displayed on the video playback area, and the video frames will be displayed correspondingly according to the drag operation of the user) based on a plurality of data items (Par. [0070] the start playback condition is that a start playing operation is received. For example, a user directly clicks on an i.sup.th video frame to start playing the i.sup.th video frame. Par.[0109] A display order of the video frame (forward or backwards) is positively related to a direction of the moving path of the video playback area. If the drag operation of the user stops and the video playback area stops at a certain position in the scrollable area, a still video frame corresponding to the position is displayed on the video playback area), each data item of the plurality of data items associated with one or more groups of pictures (GOPs) (Par. [0051] the scrollable area may be an area configured to display information flow. The information flow includes a plurality of information flow content arranged according to an updated direction. In the scrollable area, the information flow content in the information flow may move forward (i.e. arranging) according to the updated direction, or move backwards (i.e. arranging) according to an opposite direction of the updated direction. For example, the information flow includes: at least one of a text, a picture, a video (i.e. plurality of video frames) and an audio);
rendering and playing, by the processor, the arranged video frames on an output display (Par. [0064] with the drag operation, the video playback area moves in the scrollable area, and the position of the video playback area will change. The position where the video playback area has moved in the scrollable area is called a position. The client will display a video frame corresponding to a video progress in the video playback area according to the position where the video playback area is. Par. [0171] The GPU is responsible for rendering and drawing content to be displayed by a display screen (i.e. display output) 1205).
Regarding Apparatus Claim 11, it is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore apparatus claim 11 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
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 of this title, 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 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO (US 2023/0071445 A1) in view of Liu et al., (US 2020/0145701 A1) referred to as Liu hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 4, LUO discloses claim 1. LUO does not specifically teach omitting frames. Therefore, LUO fails to explicitly teach wherein the arranging comprises omitting, by the processor, one or more of the frames; and wherein the rendering and playing do not include the omitted frames.
However Liu teaches wherein the arranging comprises omitting, by the processor (Fig. 1, Par. [0066] System 100 comprises one or more computing devices which may include one or more hardware processors configured to execute the instructions stored in the one or more memories), one or more of the frames (Par. [0110], buffer 144 may store complete video data segments 145 up to a certain timestamp, and then, for a number of subsequent segments, store only a small sampling of the frames 146 that exist for those segments, without ranges of data representing the other frames in between the sampled frames (as illustrated in FIG. 1 by omitted portions 147)); and wherein the rendering and playing do not include the omitted frames (Par. [0111] Video player 142 utilizes these buffered frames to provide the enhanced trick-play modes. Generally speaking, video player 142 thus selects frames from a sequence of sampled frames—typically key frames—and utilizes the selected frames to provide enhanced playback during a trick-play operation) Par. [0184] the client continues to play the video content item in the trick-play playback mode by displaying video frames).
References LUO and Liu are considered to be analogous art because they relate to playback operations of video frames. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying the omitting frames as taught by Liu in the invention of LUO in order to store frames in a buffer in isolation of the video data with which the frames are surrounded in the one or more streams of the video content item (See Liu, Par. [0110]).
Regarding Apparatus Claim 14, it is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 4. Therefore apparatus claim 14 corresponds to method claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 2, 10, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO (US 2023/0071445 A1) in view of Liu (US 2020/0145701 A1), and in further view of GOWER et al., (US 2016/0134945 A1) referred to as GOWER hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 2, LUO discloses claim 1. LUO further automatically adjusting, by the processor, a playing speed (Par. [0110] while moving the position of the video playback area (i.e. automatically) enables the user to display the video frame of the target video at different playback speeds); and wherein the playing of the arranged video frames is performed based on the adjusted playing speed (Par. [0110] the video frame corresponding to the video progress is displayed according to the position of the video playback area while moving the position of the video playback area).
LUO does not specifically teach adjusting a plurality of playing rates. Therefore, LUO fails to explicitly teach automatically adjusting, by the processor, a playing speed based on a video acceleration database, the database associating a plurality of playing rates to numbers of accumulated frames within one or more memory buffers.
However, Liu teaches automatically adjusting, by the processor, a playing speed (Par. [0136] the number of frames and frequency of frames may be adjusted over the course of a trick-play operation to reflect changes to the playback speed, current performance metrics, and other factors) based on a database (Par. [0071] system 100 comprises a certain type of metadata 118 known as indexes 116 for some or all of the video content items 112 in a video repository 110. Various types of indexes 116 may exist. An index 116 may be specific to a stream 114, a stream segment, or more generally applicable to an entire video content item 112, depending on the index type. Par. [0072] a container for a video content item 112 may contain an index 116 directly, or reference a separate location in which the index 116 is located. For example, an index 116 may be found within a file stored at a particular Uniform Resource Indicator (URI) on the same server as the corresponding stream, or a different server. The server may include header information or other metadata that identifies this URI. Or, a separate database or table may map the stream to the index 116), the database associating a plurality of playing rates to numbers of accumulated frames within one or more memory buffers (Fig. 3, Par. [0195] Block 340 comprises receiving input requesting a trick-play operation. The input may request a direction for the operation (forward or reverse), a playback rate for the operation (e.g. a multiple of the normal playback rate in block 330 (i.e. plurality of playing rates)), and/or a type of operation (e.g. continuous playback at the faster speed, skipping, quick-play, etc.). Par. [0191] a continuous sequence of video frames forming a video content item).
References LUO and Liu are considered to be analogous art because they relate to playback operations of videos. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying a plurality of playing rates as taught by Liu in the invention of LUO in order for the client to adjust the rate at which playback frames are displayed so as not to appear jerky to the user perception (See Liu, Par. [0050]).
LUO in view of Liu fails to explicitly teach adjusting, by the processor, a playing speed based on a video acceleration database
However, GOWER teaches adjusting, by the processor, a playing speed based on a video acceleration database, the database associating a plurality of playing rates to numbers of accumulated frames (Fig. 1, database 49, Par. [0012] a method for playing video data retrieved from a database (i.e. video acceleration database) as a plurality of video segments (i.e. number of accumulated frames), each segment having metadata associated therewith indicative of the relative narrative interest of the respective segment of the data, wherein the video data is capable of being played at a selectable plurality of speeds (i.e. adjustable playing speed), and wherein the speed at which each segment is played is selected by a playback apparatus).
References LUO, Liu and GOWER are considered to be analogous art because they relate to playback operations of videos. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying a plurality of playing rates as taught by GOWER in the inventions of LUO and Liu in order to allows a “catch-up” facility to be provided to allow a viewer to watch the beginning of a sequence which is still being created (e.g a sports fixture in progress) at a variable speed so that the events of greater interest are displayed at normal speed (or in slow motion) and the less significant parts at a faster speed (See GOWER, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 10, LUO in combination with Liu and GOWER teaches claim 2. GOWER further teaches wherein the adjusting of a playing speed is performed based on a reference video playing of a remote computer (Par. [0093] The chunks representing accelerated speeds may be generated from the initial content (i.e. reference video playing), each being coded separately using standard MPEG coding techniques or derived from the normal-speed content by omitting (i.e. adjusting) as many frames as necessary to achieve the speed required. Par. [0043] a video playback device 41 for use by a viewer to download video data from a server 420 (i.e. remote computer).
Regarding Apparatus Claims 12 and 20, it is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claims 2 and 10. Therefore apparatus claims 12 and 20 correspond to method claims 2 and 10, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO (US 2023/0071445 A1), in view of Liu (US 2020/0145701 A1), and in further view of Chang et al. (US 2007/0214405 A1) referred to as Chang hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 3, LUO discloses claim 1. LUO does not specifically teach a memory buffer.
Therefore, LUO fails to explicitly teach one or more of the frames are included in a first memory buffer; and wherein the arranging comprises appending, by the processor, a second memory buffer with one or more of the frames included in the first memory buffer, the appending based on a requested video playing direction.
However, Liu teaches one or more of the frames are included in a memory buffer (Par. [0104] To play a video content item 112 (i.e. one or more frames), video player 142 reads and interprets video data and audio data for video content items 112 that have been stored at least temporarily at client 140 in a buffer 144 (i.e. memory buffer)); and wherein the arranging comprises appending, by the processor, a memory buffer with one or more of the frames included in the memory buffer (Par. [0104] Buffer 144 may be a structure or multiple structures in allocated storage spaces on any suitable media for storing electronic data, including volatile memory devices and non-volatile memory devices. Buffer 144 need not necessarily store an entire stream 114, but rather at any given time while a video content item 112 is playing, buffer 114 may store only certain portions of one or more streams 114 that contain contents that are within a certain temporal vicinity of a current playback position, recent playback positions, and/or predicted future playback positions), the appending based on a requested video playing direction (Par. [0104] As playback continues (i.e. playing direction), additional contents may be loaded into buffer 144 (i.e. appending) by a streaming client 150).
References LUO and Liu are considered to be analogous art because they relate to playback operations of videos. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying appending a memory buffer as taught by Liu in the invention of LUO so that as playback continues, additional contents may be loaded into buffer by a streaming client, while contents that have already been played may be removed after a certain amount time to reduce the amount of space needed for the buffer (See Liu, Par. [0104]).
LUO in view of Liu does not specifically teach a first memory buffer and a second memory buffer.
However, Chang teaches one or more of the frames are included in a first memory buffer; and wherein the arranging comprises appending, by the processor, a second memory buffer with one or more of the frames included in the first memory buffer, the appending based on a requested video playing direction (Par. [0044] when the first buffer memory block is decompressed, the second buffer memory block is used to store the play-forward information table after being decompressed. When the second buffer memory block has finished the playback process, the play-forward information table decompressed in the first buffer memory block is used to play the multimedia file, and then the second buffer memory block is used to decompress the next compressed partition to be played, and so forth).
References LUO, Liu and Chang are considered to be analogous art because they relate to playback operations of videos. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying two buffers as taught by Chang in the inventions of LUO and Liu in order to determine if memory is sufficient (See Chang, Par. [0042]).
Regarding Apparatus Claim 13, it is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 3. Therefore apparatus claim 13 corresponds to method claim 3, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 - 9 and 15 - 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the double patenting rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to SUSAN E HODGES whose telephone number is (571)270-0498. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8:00 am (EST) to 4:00 pm (EST).
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Brian T. Pendleton, can be reached on (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 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Susan E. Hodges/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights