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 .
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 1-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,439,066. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader than the claims of the ‘066 patent.
Instant claim 1,
A method comprising:
receiving video content;
A device comprising:
One or more processors; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the
device to:
receiving data associated with a first plurality of frames encoded by one or more
transcoders, wherein the data indicates, for each frame of the first plurality of frames, timing
information and one or more frame types;
receive data associated with a first plurality of frames encoded by one or more
transcoders, wherein the data indicates, for each frame of the first plurality of frames, a
frame type and timing information;
determining, based on the data, matching information between at least one frame of the
video content and at least one frame of the first plurality of frames; and
determine, based on the data and during encoding of a second plurality of frames,
a degree of similarity between the first plurality of frames and the second plurality of
frames, wherein the degree of similarity indicates one or more matching content features;
synchronize, based on the one or more matching content features and the timing
information, the second plurality of frames with the first plurality of frames; and
inserting the timing information associated with at least one of the first plurality of frames
in a corresponding at least one frame of a second plurality of frames of the video content.
encode, based on the synchronizing, the second plurality of frames to contain the
timing information.
Claims 2-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,439,066.
Claims 8-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,439,066.
Claims 15-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,439,066.
Claims 22-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,439,066.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by van Veldhuisen, US 2015/0281752 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Van Veldhuisen discloses:
a method comprising:
receiving video content;
receiving data associated with a first plurality of frames encoded by one or more transcoders, wherein the data indicates, for each frame of the first plurality of frames, timing information and one or more frame types (See [0084], “The boundary point may be identified in a structure in a source frame of the stream. For example, chunk boundaries may be identified by marking the header of the corresponding source frame, and/or changing a source frame which relies on referencing other frames (i.e., a "P-frame" or "B-frame") by converting it to an intracoded frame (i.e., an "I-frame").);
determining, based on the data, matching information between at least one frame of the video content and at least one frame of the first plurality of frames (See [0085], The disclosed transcoder 102 may align GOP/IDR among multiple output streams, making it easier for the packager to segment aligned streams.”); and
inserting the timing information associated with at least one of the first plurality of frames
in a corresponding at least one frame of a second plurality of frames of the video content (See step 816 in figure 8, and description in [0141], “inserting the adjusted time stamp in to the stream representation for the segment corresponding to the derived segment boundary point time stamp”).
Regarding claim 2, Van Veldhuisen discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving data comprises:
receiving, from a server operating as a broker between the one or more transcoders, the
data, or receiving, from the one or more transcoders, the data (See [0145], “Two transcoder chassis
902, 903 are shown in FIG. 9B, one transcoder 902 is the primary and one transcoder 902 is the backup, and only one 902 is sending streams to the packager. If the primary 902 fails, then the backup chassis 902 will send the streams to the packager.).
Regarding claim 4, Van Veldhuisen discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the data further comprises statistical information resulting from motion estimation, and wherein the statistical information comprises at least one of:
a measure of similarity between consecutive frames of the plurality of frames (See [0156], disclosing detecting a scene change to determine where to place segment boundaries. These frame statistics are passed to slave encoders.),
a sum of absolute transformed differences (SATD),
a sum of absolute differences (SAD),
a histogram of oriented gradients (HOG),
a quantized HOG,
a histogram of edges, or
a quantized histogram of edges.
Regarding claim 5, Van Veldhuisen discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the timing information comprises a timestamp, and wherein the inserting the timing information comprises inserting the timestamp (See step 816 in figure 8, and description in [0141], “inserting the adjusted time stamp in to the stream representation for the segment corresponding to the derived segment boundary point time stamp.).
Regarding claim 6, Van Veldhuisen discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein each transcoder of the one or more transcoders is located at a different data center or associated with a different instance in a cloud platform (See [0064], “For example, for output stream groups output across different devices or from different units that may be in different locations, the output streams often have out of synch source clock times.”).
Regarding claim 7, Van Veldhuisen discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the matching information comprises one or more matching content features comprising at least one of: a frame type (See [0084], “For example, chunk boundaries may be identified by marking the header of the corresponding source frame, and/or changing a source frame which relies on referencing other frames (i.e., a "P-frame" or "B-frame") by converting it to an intracoded frame (i.e., an "I-frame").), a similarity between one or more motion vectors, a color, or a resolution.
Device claims 8, 9, and 11-14 are drawn to an apparatus implementing the corresponding method claimed in claims 1-2, and 4-7, respectively. Therefore, apparatus claims 8, and 11-14 correspond, respectively, to method claims 1-2, and 4-7, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Non-transitory computer readable medium claims 15, 16, and 28-21 are drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, implement the corresponding method claimed in claims 1-2, and 4-7, respectively. Therefore, device claims 22, 23, 25-28 correspond, respectively, to method claims 1-2, and 4-7, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
System claims 22, 23, and 25-28 are drawn to an apparatus implementing the corresponding method claimed in claims 1-2, and 4-7, respectively. Therefore, apparatus claims 22, 23, 25-28 correspond, respectively, to method claims 1-2, and 4-7, respectively, and are 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, 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 3, 10, 17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Veldhuisen, in view of Eswaran, US 2013/0272374.
Regarding claim 3, Van Veldhuisen discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends. Van Veldhuisen does not disclose: the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving information indicating that the one or more transcoders are encoding a degraded
input channel and are discontinuing encoding of the first plurality of frames.
However, Eswaran discloses in an analogous directed to scalable live transcoding providing redundant in case of failures, and further discloses switching between parallel transcoder components in the event of failure/degradation of one channel. See [0021] and [0031].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate a switchover/failover feature in the transcoder system disclosed in Van Veldhuisen, in order to minimize streaming service disruption. See Eswaran [0003].
Device claim 10 is drawn to a device implementing the corresponding method claimed in claim 3. Therefore, device claim 10 corresponds to method claim 3, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Non-transitory computer readable claim 17 is drawn to a device implementing the corresponding method claimed in claim 3. Therefore, non-transitory computer readable claim claim 17 corresponds to method claim 3, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
System claim 24 is drawn to a device implementing the corresponding method claimed in claim 3. Therefore, device claim 24 corresponds to method claim 3, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYLE M LOTFI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights