DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to communications filed 2/23/2026. Claims 1, 12 and 20 are amended. Claims 4, 7, 16 and 18 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-15, 17, and 19-23 are pending in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-15, 17, and 19-23 have been considered but are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10 that “Further, the motivation described in the Office Action to combine Park with Gengembre, the Office Action is insufficient:
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Park to include the limitations by Gengembre for the advantage of providing options to more efficiently and robustly determine information about various media.
Office Action at page 8 (emphasis added). These allegations are insufficient because it is not enough to merely allege "that a skilled artisan, once presented with the two references, would have understood that they could be combined." See Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 993-94 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Beldenlnc. v. Berk-TekLLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) for the proposition that "[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention." (emphasis original)).
Here, the Office Action fails to sufficiently identify how Gengembre either individually or in combination motivates modifying Park - alleged in the Office Action to teach receiving from an encoder a video segment including media and metadata (see Office Action at pages 5-7) - to arrive at the claimed invention. It is unclear from the allegations in the Office Action how the alleged motivation "for the advantage of providing options to more efficiently and robustly determine information about various media" would actually arrive at the claimed invention or where the references support this motivation. The "Response to Arguments" section of the Office Action merely alleges, without any evidence, that "In this case, by combining the teachings of Park and Gengembre, the metadata of Park may reasonably include the information of Gengembre, and a more efficient system of determining information is realized, at least by way of different types of information that may be provided for analysis." Office Action at page 4. These are mere allegations that one skilled in the art once presented with Park and Gengembre would have understood that they could be combined, which is an insufficient motivation. See Pers. Web Techs., 848 F.3d at 993-94. The Advisory Action does not sufficiently rebut these arguments and merely provides conclusory statements that "In this case, by combining the teachings of Park and Gengembre, the metadata of Park may reasonably include the information of Gengembre, and a more efficient system of determining information is realized, at least by way of different types of information that may be provided for analysis." Advisory Action at pages 3-4. Therefore, for at least the reason that the Office Action and Advisory Action fail to set forth a sufficient motivation to modify Park based on Gengembre, the rejection is improper, and reconsideration is respectfully requested”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner notes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), and that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, by combining the teachings of Park and Gengembre, the metadata of Park may reasonably include the information of Gengembre, and a more efficient system of determining information is realized, at least by way of different types of information that may be provided for analysis. The Applicant should please note that the strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). >See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the improvement is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal-and even common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.") (see MPEP 2123[R-5]). Therefore, the rejection of record is maintained.
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 1-2 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (of record) in view of Gengembre (of record), Abajian (of record) and Levy et al. (US20080044087, hereinafter Levy).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a method (Park’s implementation including using conventional de-duplication technology that compares content and not just metadata, see Park, at least at col 2, lines 35-66, col 4, line 42 – col 5, line 30, col 8, lines 27-40, col 11, lines 16-22, col 12, line 63 – col 13, line 10, and related text) comprising:
receiving (see Park, at least at col 4, lines 4-12 and lines 30-41, and related text), from a first encoder (at least code/portion of code to implement specific steps of a device to encode content in a specific format/technique, see Park, at least at col 4, lines 42-50, col 8, lines 27-33, col 11, line 23 – col 12, line 62, and related text), a first video segment comprising first information (i.e., file including media and metadata, see Park, at least at col 4, lines 4-20, col 4, lines 42-50, col 10, line 66 – col 11, line 15, and related text);
receiving (see Park, at least at col 4, lines 4-12 and lines 30-41, and related text), from a second encoder (at least code/portion of code to implement specific steps of a device to encode content in a second specific format/technique, see Park, at least at col 4, lines 42-50, col 8, lines 27-33, col 11, line 23 – col 12, line 62, and related text), a second video segment comprising second information (i.e., file including media and metadata, see Park, at least at col 4, lines 4-20, col 4, lines 42-50, col 10, line 66 – col 11, line 15, col 8, lines 41-52, and related text); and
determining, based on a comparison of the first information to the second information (see Park, at least at col 4, line 42 – col 5, line 30, col 8, line 34-30, and related text), that the second video segment comprises a redundant video segment (the determination being performed in the implementation in which both the preferred de-duplication technique is used as well as the conventional de-duplication technique is used, and as such the determination is based at least on the comparison of the information. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park such that both embodiments are used for making the determination for the advantage of more efficiently determining duplicate video, see Park, at least at col 2, lines 35-66, col 4, line 42 – col 5, line 30, col 8, lines 27-40, col 9, lines 28-39, col 11, lines 16-22, col 12, line 63 – col 13, line 10, and related text. The Applicant should please note that the limitation of “indicating that the second video segment comprises a redundant video segment” is a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim); and
causing, based on the indicating that the second video segment comprises the redundant video segment, deduplication of the second video segment (see Park, at least at col 1, lines 6-32, Figs 1-3, and related text).
Park does not specifically disclose the first video segment comprising first information, embedded by the first encoder, that is indicative of first perceptual data associated with the first video segment;
the second video segment comprising second information, embedded by the second encoder, that is indicative of second perceptual data associated with the second video segment; or
determining, based on a comparison of the first information perceptual data to the second perceptual data information, that the first video segment and second video segment were encoded based on one or more identical source frames indicating that the second video segment comprises a redundant video segment.
In an analogous art relating to a system for analyzing media, Gengembre discloses a first video segment (i.e., candidate entity, see Gengembre, at least at [0049], [0100], and other related text) comprising first information indicative of first perceptual data associated with the first video segment (i.e., descriptors indicative of color histograms, see Gengembre, at least at [0016]-[0020], [0047]-[0051], and other related text);
second video segment (i.e., current entity, see Gengembre, at least at [0049], [0100], and other related text) comprising second information indicative of second perceptual data associated with the second video segment (i.e., descriptors indicative of color histograms, see Gengembre, at least at [0016]-[0020], [0047]-[0051], and other related text); and
determining, based on a comparison of the first perceptual data to the second perceptual data (see Gengembre, at least at [0049], and other related text), that the first video segment and second video segment were from one or more identical source frames (see Gengembre, at least at [0017]-[0020], and other related text) indicating that the second video segment comprises a redundant video segment (see Gengembre, at least at [0020], [0054], [0091]-[0094], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Park to include the limitations by Gengembre for the advantage of providing options to more efficiently and robustly determine information about various media.
Park in view of Gengembre does not specifically disclose the first information embedded by the first encoder; or
the second information, embedded by the second encoder; or
determining that the first video segment and second video segment were encoded based on one or more identical source frames.
In an analogous art relating to a system for managing media, Levy discloses first information embedded by a first encoder (see Levy, at least at [0026]-[0027], and other related text); and
second information, embedded by a second encoder (see Levy, at least at [0026]-[0027], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Park in view of Gengembre to include the limitations by Levy for the advantage of more efficiently providing information and control of content.
Park in view of Gengembre and Levy does not specifically disclose determining that the first video segment and second video segment were encoded based on one or more identical source frames.
In an analogous art relating to a system for managing media, Abajian discloses determining, based on a comparison of first perceptual data and second perceptual data, that a first video segment and second video segment were encoded based on one or more identical source frames indicating that the second video segment comprises a redundant video segment (see Abajian, at least at [0007], [0020]-[0023], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Park in view of Gengembre and Levy to include the limitations by Abajian for the advantage of providing options to more efficiently and robustly determine information about various media.
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Gengembre, Levy, and Abajian discloses wherein the determining that the first video segment and second video segment were encoded based on one or more identical source frames (see Abajian, at least at [0007], [0023], and related text) is in response to determining that the first video segment and the second video segment are not bit- wise identical (see Abajian, at least at [0007], and related text, and see Park, at least at col 5, lines 7-16, col 8, lines 25-40, col 11, lines 16-22, col 12, line 63 – col 13, line 10, and related text).
Regarding claims 8-9, Park in view of Gengembre, Levy, and Abajian discloses wherein the first information indicates first perceptual data associated with the first video segment, wherein the second information indicates second perceptual data associated with the second video segment (see Gengembre, at least at [0051], and other related text).
Regarding claim 10, Park in view of Gengembre, Levy, and Abajian discloses wherein the redundant video segment is not stored by one or more servers associated with a content delivery network (the redundant video is deleted, see Park, at least at col 1, lines 19-32, and related text).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (of record) in view of Gengembre (of record), Levy (previously cited), and Abajian (of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitani (of record).
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Gengembre, Levy, and Abajian discloses the first information associated with a first hash value determined based on one or more first source frames received by the first encoder, and the second information associated with a second hash value determined based on one or more second source frames received by the second encoder (the implementation in which both the preferred de-duplication technique is used as well as the conventional de-duplication technique is used, and as such the determination is based at least on the comparison of the information, see Park, at least at col 2, lines 35-66, col 4, line 42 – col 5, line 30, col 8, lines 27-40, col 9, lines 28-39, col 11, lines 16-22, col 12, line 63 – col 13, line 10, and related text, and see Abajian, at least at [0020]-[0023], and related text), but does not specifically disclose the information comprises the hash values.
In an analogous art relating to a system for managing media, Kitani discloses information comprising hash values (i.e., the video signals are each embedded with respective hash values, see Kitani, at least at [0059], [0089]-[0090], and related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Park in view of Gengembre, Levy and Abajian to include the limitations as taught by Kitani for the advantage of more efficiently and robustly determine information about various media.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (of record) in view of Gengembre (of record), Levy (previously cited), Abajian (of record) and Kitani (of record), as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and further in view of Lerouge (of record).
Regarding claims 5-6, Park in view of Gengembre, Levy, Abajian and Kitani does not specifically disclose wherein the first hash value is included in at least one of: a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message, an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) base media file format (BMFF) box, or a Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG)-2 transport streams (TS) descriptor and wherein the second hash value is included in at least one of: a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message, an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) base media file format (BMFF) box, or a Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG)-2 transport streams (TS) descriptor.
In an analogous art relating to a system managing media, Lerouge discloses hash values included in supplemental enhancement information (SEI) messages (see Lerouge, at least at [0008], [0020], and related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Park in view of Gengembre, Levy, Abajian and Kitani to include the limitations as taught by Lerouge for the advantage of providing information using well-known protocols for efficient processing.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (of record) in view of Gengembre (of record), Levy (previously cited), and Abajian (of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kahn et al. (US20170064356, hereinafter Kahn).
Regarding claim 11, Park in view of Gengembre, Levy and Abajian does not specifically disclose wherein the first video segment is received via a fiber connection, wherein the second video segment is received via a satellite connection.
In an analogous art relating to a system for managing content, Kahn discloses first video segment received via a fiber connection and second video segment received via a satellite connection (see at least Kahn, at least at [0038]-[0045], [0077], and related text). Upon further formal response and/or prosecution, the reference may be added to any rejection presented.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Park in view of Gengembre, Levy and Abajian to include the limitations by Kahn for the advantage of optimizing system resources and providing content via well-known and standard connections.
Claims 12, 17, 20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (of record) in view of Gengembre (of record), Levy (previously cited), Abajian (of record), and Belyaev (of record).
Regarding claims 12, 17, 20 and 22, Park discloses a method (Park’s implementation including using conventional de-duplication technology that compares content and not just metadata, see Park, at least at col 2, lines 35-66, col 4, line 42 – col 5, line 30, col 8, lines 27-40, col 11, lines 16-22, col 12, line 63 – col 13, line 10, and related text) comprising:
encoding a first video segment and a second video segment (see Park, at least at col 4, lines 42-50, col 8, lines 27-33, col 11, line 23 – col 12, line 62, and related text);
sending, to a content delivery network, the first video segment and the second video segment (see Park, at least at col 4, lines 42-50, col 8, lines 27-33, col 11, line 23 – col 12, line 62, and related text) to cause a server associated with the content delivery network to:
determine, based on a comparison of the first information to the second information (see Park, at least at col 4, line 42 – col 5, line 30, col 8, line 34-30, and related text), that the second video segment comprises a redundant video segment (the determination being performed in the implementation in which both the preferred de-duplication technique is used as well as the conventional de-duplication technique is used, and as such the determination is based at least on the comparison of the information. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park such that both embodiments are used for making the determination for the advantage of more efficiently determining duplicate video, see Park, at least at col 2, lines 35-66, col 4, line 42 – col 5, line 30, col 8, lines 27-40, col 9, lines 28-39, col 11, lines 16-22, col 12, line 63 – col 13, line 10, and related text. The Applicant should please note that the limitation of “indicating that the second video segment comprises a redundant video segment” is a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim); and
deduplicate the second video segment (see Park, at least at col 1, lines 6-32, Figs 1-3, and related text).
Park does not specifically disclose the first video segment comprising first information, embedded by a first encoder of the one or more encoders, and that is indicative of first perceptual data associated with the first video segment;
the second video segment comprising second information, embedded by a second encoder of the one or more encoders, and that is indicative of second perceptual data associated with the second video segment; or
determining, based on a comparison of the first information perceptual data to the second perceptual data information, that the first video segment and second video segment were encoded based on one or more identical source frames indicating that the second video segment comprises a redundant video segment,
wherein the server determined the first perceptual data and the second perceptual data based on determining one or more quality metrics.
In an analogous art relating to a system for analyzing media, Gengembre discloses a first video segment (i.e., candidate entity, see Gengembre, at least at [0049], [0100], and other related text) comprising first information indicative of first perceptual data associated with the first video segment (i.e., descriptors indicative of color histograms, see Gengembre, at least at [0016]-[0020], [0047]-[0051], and other related text);
a second video segment (i.e., current entity, see Gengembre, at least at [0049], [0100], and other related text) comprising second information indicative of second perceptual data associated with the second video segment (i.e., descriptors indicative of color histograms, see Gengembre, at least at [0016]-[0020], [0047]-[0051], and other related text); and
determining, based on a comparison of the first perceptual data to the second perceptual data (see Gengembre, at least at [0049], and other related text), that the first video segment and second video segment were from one or more identical source frames (see Gengembre, at least at [0017]-[0020], and other related text) indicating that the second video segment comprises a redundant video segment (see Gengembre, at least at [0020], [0054], [0091]-[0094], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Park to include the limitations by Gengembre for the advantage of providing options to more efficiently and robustly determine information about various media.
Park in view of Gengembre does not specifically disclose the first information embedded by the first encoder; or
the second information, embedded by the second encoder; or
determining that the first video segment and second video segment were encoded based on one or more identical source frames; or
wherein the server determined the first perceptual data and the second perceptual data based on determining one or more quality metrics.
In an analogous art relating to a system for managing media, Levy discloses first information embedded by a first encoder (see Levy, at least at [0026]-[0027], and other related text); and
second information, embedded by a second encoder (see Levy, at least at [0026]-[0027], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Park in view of Gengembre to include the limitations by Levy for the advantage of more efficiently providing information and control of content.
Park in view of Gengembre and Levy does not specifically disclose determining that the first video segment and second video segment were encoded based on one or more identical source frames; or
wherein the server determined the first perceptual data and the second perceptual data based on determining one or more quality metrics.
In an analogous art relating to a system for managing media, Abajian discloses determining, based on a comparison of first perceptual data and second perceptual data, that a first video segment and second video segment were encoded based on one or more identical source frames indicating that the second video segment comprises a redundant video segment (see Abajian, at least at [0007], [0020]-[0023], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Park in view of Gengembre and Levy to include the limitations by Abajian for the advantage of providing options to more efficiently and robustly determine information about various media.
Park in view of Gengembre, Levy, and Abajian does not specifically disclose wherein the first perceptual data and the second perceptual data are based on one or more quality metrics.
In an analogous art relating to a system for managing media, Belyaev discloses wherein the first perceptual data and the second perceptual data are based on one or more quality metrics (see Belyaev, at least at [0034]-[0035], [0041], [0072]-[0073], [0102]-[0103], [0118], [0138], [0158], and related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Park in view of Gengembre, Levy and Abajian, to include the limitations as taught by Belyaev for the advantage of providing more robust methods and information for evaluating media.
Claims 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (of record) in view of Gengembre (of record), Levy (previously cited), Abajian (of record), and Belyaev (of record), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kitani (of record).
Regarding claims 13 and 21, Park in view of Gengembre, Levy, Abajian and Belyaev discloses the first information associated with a first hash value determined based on one or more first source frames received by the first encoder, and the second information associated with a second hash value determined based on one or more second source frames received by the second encoder (the implementation in which both the preferred de-duplication technique is used as well as the conventional de-duplication technique is used, and as such the determination is based at least on the comparison of the information, see Park, at least at col 2, lines 35-66, col 4, line 42 – col 5, line 30, col 8, lines 27-40, col 9, lines 28-39, col 11, lines 16-22, col 12, line 63 – col 13, line 10, and related text, and see Abajian, at least at [0020]-[0023], and related text), but does not specifically disclose the information comprises the hash values.
In an analogous art relating to a system for managing media, Kitani discloses information comprising hash values (i.e., the video signals are each embedded with respective hash values, see Kitani, at least at [0059], [0089]-[0090], and related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Park in view of Gengembre, Levy, Abajian and Belyaev to include the limitations as taught by Kitani for the advantage of more efficiently and robustly determine information about various media.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (of record) in view of Gengembre (of record), Levy (previously cited), Abajian (of record), Belyaev (of record) and Kitani (of record), as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Lerouge (of record).
Regarding 14-15, Park in view of Gengembre, Levy, Abajian, Belyaev and Kitani does not specifically disclose wherein the first hash value is included in at least one of: a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message, an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) base media file format (BMFF) box, or a Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG)-2 transport streams (TS) descriptor and wherein the second hash value is included in at least one of: a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message, an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) base media file format (BMFF) box, or a Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG)-2 transport streams (TS) descriptor.
In an analogous art relating to a system managing media, Lerouge discloses hash values included in supplemental enhancement information (SEI) messages (see Lerouge, at least at [0008], [0020], and related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Park in view of Gengembre, Levy, Abajian and Belyaev to include the limitations as taught by Lerouge for the advantage of providing information using well-known protocols for efficient processing.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (of record) in view of Gengembre (of record), Levy (previously cited), Abajian (of record), Belyaev (of record) and Kitani (of record), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kahn previously cited).
Regarding claims 19 and 23, Park in view of Gengembre, Levy, Abajian, Belyaev and Kitani does not specifically disclose wherein the first video segment is received via a fiber connection, wherein the second video segment is received via a satellite connection.
In an analogous art relating to a system for managing content, Kahn discloses first video segment received via a fiber connection and second video segment received via a satellite connection (see at least Kahn, at least at [0038]-[0045], [0077], and related text). Upon further formal response and/or prosecution, the reference may be added to any rejection presented.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Park in view of Gengembre, Levy, Abajian Belyaev and Kitani to include the limitations by Kahn for the advantage of optimizing system resources and providing content via well-known and standard connections.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (of record) in view of Gengembre (of record), Levy (previously cited), Abajian (of record), and Belyaev (of record), as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Kahn previously cited).
Regarding claims 19 and 23, Park in view of Gengembre, Levy, Abajian, and Belyaev does not specifically disclose wherein the first video segment is received via a fiber connection, wherein the second video segment is received via a satellite connection.
In an analogous art relating to a system for managing content, Kahn discloses first video segment received via a fiber connection and second video segment received via a satellite connection (see at least Kahn, at least at [0038]-[0045], [0077], and related text). Upon further formal response and/or prosecution, the reference may be added to any rejection presented.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Park in view of Gengembre, Levy, Abajian and Belyaev to include the limitations by Kahn for the advantage of optimizing system resources and providing content via well-known and standard connections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENEA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9524 and whose email address is CHENEA.SMITH@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/CHENEA DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights