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 .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 24, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12 and 14-25 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forman et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0205778) in view of Fu et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0155932) and Fieldhouse et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0038275).
Regarding claim 1, Forman discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device and from a client device, a first request for a first segment of a first version (para. [0005]; “Edge servers 111-115 can cache recently requested fragments of media content encoded at different bitrates and/or quality levels, and edge servers 111-115 can contact origin servers 105-108 to request fragments that are not in their respective caches if those fragments are requested by client devices 120-129.”), of a plurality of versions, of a content asset (Fig. 2, element 212, para. [0012]); determining, based on one or more usage characteristics associated with a capability of the computing device to provide content to client devices connected to the computing device, a second version, of the plurality of versions, of the content asset (para. [0013]); sending, by the computing device and to the client device, a response comprising the first segment of the first version of the content asset (Fig. 2, element 224, para. [0013]); receiving, by the computing device and from the client device, a second request for a second segment of the second version of the content asset (para. [0005]; “Edge servers 111-115 can cache recently requested fragments of media content encoded at different bitrates and/or quality levels, and edge servers 111-115 can contact origin servers 105-108 to request fragments that are not in their respective caches if those fragments are requested by client devices 120-129.”); and sending, by the computing device and to the client device, one or more segments of the second version of the content asset (Figs. 2 and 4, paras. [0012]-[0013]; paras. [0021]-[0027]; see also the language of claim 1, which discusses a third fragment.).
It could be argued that Forman does not explicitly disclose receiving a first request for a first segment of a first version, of a plurality of stored versions, of a content asset, nor determining a second version, of the plurality of stored versions, of the content asset. However, in analogous art, Fu discloses that “[i]n one example, server 102 stores various media programs, such as videos (e.g., a title, movie, or show) or audio, that have been (or will be) encoded in different versions at different bitrates. For example, a media program has been divided into segments that an encoder encodes at multiple bitrates, from high to low. A media program is stored as different versions (i.e., bitrates) as a first version of the media program (e.g., high bitrate), a second version of the media program (e.g., medium bitrate), . . . , and an N version of the media program (e.g., low bitrate). The different bitrates provide video content at different levels of quality. For example, a higher bitrate video will be of a higher quality (e.g., resolution) than the medium bitrate, and the medium bitrate of a higher quality than the lower bitrate. Although these encodings are described, various embodiments may include different encodings at any number of bitrates. The encoder segments the media program for the different bitrates into segments. The segments are the same size across different versions so media player 110 can switch to different bitrates during playback. However, the segments within the same version may be different sizes (or the same size) (para. [0018]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Forman to allow for receiving a first request for a first segment of a first version, of a plurality of stored versions, of a content asset, and determining a second version, of the plurality of stored versions, of the content asset. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a server to be able to quickly supply the requested version of content to a user.
It could be argued that the combination of Forman and Fu does not explicitly disclose sending, by the computing device and to the client device, a response comprising the first segment of the first version of the content asset and an indication of the second version of the content asset. However, in analogous art, Fieldhouse discloses using MPEG-DASH such that “the alternative versions of a segment include the same content and cover the same aligned short interval of playback time but can be delivered at different bit rates (para. [0003]),” but also “proposes a system and method for providing a content stream based on capturing an initial delivery of the content stream. According to an aspect of this disclosure the method comprises obtaining manifest data related to the initial delivery of the content stream, the manifest data being obtained one or more times in a sequence during the initial delivery of the content stream to generate one or more manifest files; associating a time-stamp with each of the one or more manifest files, the time stamp being indicative of a time of obtaining the associated manifest file; processing each of the one or more manifest files to identify one or more addresses referenced in the manifest file of one or more segments comprising a portion of the content stream in the initial delivery; accessing one or more of the segments identified via the one or more addresses referenced in the manifest files; modifying a last manifest file of the one or more manifest files to include at least a portion of an earlier manifest file of the one or more manifest files; and providing a client with access to the one or more manifest files including the modified last manifest file and the accessed one or more segments, thereby enabling the client to receive at least a portion of the content stream (para. [0007]),” such that “new versions of the manifest data are thus accessed periodically, e.g. by accessing an updated manifest file from the system 10 as the transmission proceeds. At step 210, the system 10 accesses (e.g., downloads or retrieves) the currently existing manifest data 42 from the content stream server 40, associates a time-stamp with the obtained manifest data file in step 220, the time stamp being indicative of the time of obtaining the associated manifest data. Each accessed (e.g., downloaded) copy of the manifest data 42 is referred to herein as a captured manifest file, each captured manifest file relating to a time slice of the content stream transmission (para. [0056]),” wherein the new versions of the manifest data, which are accessed periodically, can be seen as an indication of the second version of the content asset, as they contain information about requesting different versions of the content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Forman and Fu to allow for sending, by the computing device and to the client device, a response comprising the first segment of the first version of the content asset and an indication of the second version of the content asset. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a well-known technique to be applied to the system, which would allow for manifest data to be periodically updated, which could improve the performance of, and user satisfaction with, the system.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Forman, Fu and Fieldhouse discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first version of the content asset is associated with a first bitrate and the second version of the content asset is associated with a second bitrate (Forman, Fig. 2, Fragments A and B, paras. [0012]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Forman, Fu and Fieldhouse discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the plurality of stored versions of the content asset comprise respective video streams of the content asset implemented according to adaptive bitrate streaming techniques (Forman, paras. [0012] and [0014]; Fu, para. [0018]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Forman, Fu and Fieldhouse discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more usage characteristics associated with the capability of the computing device to provide content to client devices connected to the computing device comprises at least one of: a number of concurrent client devices connected to the computing device, a rate of requests to the computing device, the computing device's CPU usage, the computing device's GPU usage, the computing device's memory usage, the computing device's storage usage, the computing device's network resource availability, the computing device's cryptographic offload hardware utilization, the computing device's thermal dissipation capacity, the computing device's electrical usage, a financial utilization of hardware associated with the computing device, a hardware configuration of the computing device, or a software configuration of the computing device (Forman, Fig. 4, element 408, para. [0024]; “the availability of computing resources (available bandwidth and available hardware resources, e.g., CPU capacity) of a media server is included as part of the determination of block 408. For example, media server 208 might handle many encoding processes from many client devices at a particular period of time. In addition, media server 208 has available resources that change according to the number of fragments being encoded and the complexity of each fragment.”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Forman, Fu and Fieldhouse discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first request comprises a first HTTP request for the first segment, the response comprises an HTTP response comprising an HTTP header that indicates the second version of the content asset, and the second request comprises a second HTTP request for the second segment (Forman, paras. [0005] and [0027]).
Regarding claim 11, Forman discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device and from a client device, a request for a first segment of a first version (para. [0005]; “Edge servers 111-115 can cache recently requested fragments of media content encoded at different bitrates and/or quality levels, and edge servers 111-115 can contact origin servers 105-108 to request fragments that are not in their respective caches if those fragments are requested by client devices 120-129.”), of a plurality of versions, of a content asset (Fig. 2, element 212, para. [0012]); determining, based on one or more usage characteristics associated with a capability of the computing device to provide content to client devices connected to the computing device, a second version, of the plurality of versions, of the content asset (para. [0013]); and sending, by the computing device and to the client device, a response comprising a segment of the second version of the content asset (Fig. 2, element 224, para. [0013]).
It could be argued that Forman does not explicitly disclose receiving a request for a first segment of a first version, of a plurality of stored versions, of a content asset, nor determining a second version, of the plurality of stored versions, of the content asset. However, in analogous art, Fu discloses that “[i]n one example, server 102 stores various media programs, such as videos (e.g., a title, movie, or show) or audio, that have been (or will be) encoded in different versions at different bitrates. For example, a media program has been divided into segments that an encoder encodes at multiple bitrates, from high to low. A media program is stored as different versions (i.e., bitrates) as a first version of the media program (e.g., high bitrate), a second version of the media program (e.g., medium bitrate), . . . , and an N version of the media program (e.g., low bitrate). The different bitrates provide video content at different levels of quality. For example, a higher bitrate video will be of a higher quality (e.g., resolution) than the medium bitrate, and the medium bitrate of a higher quality than the lower bitrate. Although these encodings are described, various embodiments may include different encodings at any number of bitrates. The encoder segments the media program for the different bitrates into segments. The segments are the same size across different versions so media player 110 can switch to different bitrates during playback. However, the segments within the same version may be different sizes (or the same size) (para. [0018]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Forman to allow for receiving a request for a first segment of a first version, of a plurality of stored versions, of a content asset, and determining a second version, of the plurality of stored versions, of the content asset. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a server to be able to quickly supply the requested version of content to a user.
It could be argued that the combination of Forman and Fu does not explicitly disclose sending, by the computing device, and to the client device, a response comprising a segment of the second version of the content asset and an indication of the second version of the content asset. However, in analogous art, Fieldhouse discloses using MPEG-DASH such that “the alternative versions of a segment include the same content and cover the same aligned short interval of playback time but can be delivered at different bit rates (para. [0003]),” but also “proposes a system and method for providing a content stream based on capturing an initial delivery of the content stream. According to an aspect of this disclosure the method comprises obtaining manifest data related to the initial delivery of the content stream, the manifest data being obtained one or more times in a sequence during the initial delivery of the content stream to generate one or more manifest files; associating a time-stamp with each of the one or more manifest files, the time stamp being indicative of a time of obtaining the associated manifest file; processing each of the one or more manifest files to identify one or more addresses referenced in the manifest file of one or more segments comprising a portion of the content stream in the initial delivery; accessing one or more of the segments identified via the one or more addresses referenced in the manifest files; modifying a last manifest file of the one or more manifest files to include at least a portion of an earlier manifest file of the one or more manifest files; and providing a client with access to the one or more manifest files including the modified last manifest file and the accessed one or more segments, thereby enabling the client to receive at least a portion of the content stream (para. [0007]),” such that “new versions of the manifest data are thus accessed periodically, e.g. by accessing an updated manifest file from the system 10 as the transmission proceeds. At step 210, the system 10 accesses (e.g., downloads or retrieves) the currently existing manifest data 42 from the content stream server 40, associates a time-stamp with the obtained manifest data file in step 220, the time stamp being indicative of the time of obtaining the associated manifest data. Each accessed (e.g., downloaded) copy of the manifest data 42 is referred to herein as a captured manifest file, each captured manifest file relating to a time slice of the content stream transmission (para. [0056]),” wherein the new versions of the manifest data, which are accessed periodically, can be seen as an indication of the second version of the content asset, as they contain information about requesting different versions of the content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Forman and Fu to allow for sending, by the computing device, and to the client device, a response comprising a segment of the second version of the content asset and an indication of the second version of the content asset. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a well-known technique to be applied to the system, which would allow for manifest data to be periodically updated, which could improve the performance of, and user satisfaction with, the system.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Forman, Fu and Fieldhouse discloses the method of claim 11, and further discloses further comprising: receiving, by the computing device and from the client device, a second request for a third segment of the second version of the content asset (Forman, Figs. 2 and 4, paras. [0012]-[0013]; paras. [0021]-[0027]; see also the language of claim 1, which discusses a third fragment.).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forman et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0205778) in view of Fu et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0155932), Fieldhouse et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0038275) and Bouazizi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0185570).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Forman, Fu and Fieldhouse discloses the method of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the response comprises an instructions for the client device to at least one of: downshift the first version of the content asset associated with the first bitrate down to the second version of the content asset associated with the second bitrate, or upshift the first version of the content asset associated with the first bitrate up to the second version of the content asset associated with the second bitrate. However, in analogous art, Bouazizi discloses that a server may send information to a content consumption device, wherein a switch point included within the information indicates when said device should change to a higher or lower bitrate stream, stating “[a]s noted above, HTTP streaming provides for bitrate adaptation by switching between different bitstreams of the same content (para. [0048]),” wherein “[u]pon deciding to perform a switch operation and to ensure the desired synchronization, a content consumption device generally has to: select the appropriate representation, fetch the media segment that roughly corresponds to the current playback point, locate a switch point and determine its representation time, e.g., locate an IDR or an I picture, playback the content from the first representation until the representation time of the switch point from the second representation and then playback the content from the second representation starting from the determined switch point (para. [0054]),” and then discloses “[i]n one embodiment, the switching point information is provided as an independent switch point block 416, which usually follows the moov block 406 and precedes the moof and mdat blocks 417 and 418 as shown in FIG. 10A. A segment may have its own independent switch point block, that is, more than one switching point information block 416 may be present and usually precedes the first moof block of a segment. Relative to the table of the IS OFF-compatible metadata provided above, the independent switch point block 416 of this embodiment would be on Level L0 along with, for example, the ftyp 303, moov 406, moof 417 and mdat 418 boxes. As such, the switching point information provided in an independent switch point block 416 as shown in FIG. 10A would relate to each fragment within a respective media segment (para. [0106]; see also Fig. 10A, element 416).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Forman, Fu and Fieldhouse to allow for the response to comprise an instructions for the client device to at least one of: downshift the first version of the content asset associated with the first bitrate down to the second version of the content asset associated with the second bitrate, or upshift the first version of the content asset associated with the first bitrate up to the second version of the content asset associated with the second bitrate. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for “switching points to be identified by a server such that a content consumption device may readily utilize the switching points to switch between different streams in an efficient manner (Bouazizi, para. [0063]).”
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Forman, Fu and Fieldhouse discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the response indicates the second version of the content asset via at least one of a header associated with the response, a trailer associated with the response, or metadata associated with the response. However, in analogous art, Bouazizi discloses that “[i]n one embodiment, the switching point information is provided as an independent switch point block 416, which usually follows the moov block 406 and precedes the moof and mdat blocks 417 and 418 as shown in FIG. 10A. A segment may have its own independent switch point block, that is, more than one switching point information block 416 may be present and usually precedes the first moof block of a segment. Relative to the table of the IS OFF-compatible metadata provided above, the independent switch point block 416 of this embodiment would be on Level L0 along with, for example, the ftyp 303, moov 406, moof 417 and mdat 418 boxes. As such, the switching point information provided in an independent switch point block 416 as shown in FIG. 10A would relate to each fragment within a respective media segment (para. [0106]; see also Fig. 10A, element 416).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Forman, Fu and Fieldhouse to allow for the response to indicate the second version of the content asset via at least one of a header associated with the response, a trailer associated with the response, or metadata associated with the response. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for relevant data to be provided using well-known techniques.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forman et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0205778) in view of Fu et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0155932), Fieldhouse et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0038275) and Kothandapani et al. (Pat. No.: US 8, 312,163)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Forman, Fu and Fieldhouse discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first version of the content asset is associated with a first encoding algorithm and the second version of the content asset is associated with a second encoding algorithm. However, in analogous art, Kothandapani discloses that “[i]n another embodiment of the present invention, the amount of video data associated with a current captured screen frame to be transmitted to the remote computer 138 may be determined by the FPGA 200 in accordance with a threshold filtering process described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/301,202, entitled "Method, System, and Computer-Readable Medium for the Adaptive Filtering and Compression of Video Data" which is assigned to the assignee of the instant patent application and expressly incorporated herein by reference. In accordance with the threshold filtering process, the FPGA 200 maintains video data associated with a previous captured screen frame in the first memory location 206 of the storage device 204 and video data associated with a current captured screen frame in the second memory location 208 of the storage device. Pixel values of the current captured screen frame of video data are compared to pixel values at the same locations of the previous captured screen frame of video data to generate a filtered value for a pixel of the current captured screen frame. If the pixel values of the successive screen frames of video data are not equal, then the FPGA 200 performs threshold checks to determine the filtered valued for the pixel of the current captured screen frame. Once the filtered value for the pixel of the current captured screen frame is determined, the FPGA 200 generates an encoded value for the filtered value by applying a first algorithm when lossless compression is desired or by applying a second algorithm when lossy compression is desired. The encoded values for the video data of the current captured screen frame illustrate the video data to be transmitted to the remote computer 138. It should be appreciated by those skilled in the art that any other filtering process may be utilized to determine an amount of video data to be transmitted from the local computer 102 to the remote computer 138 (col. 7, ln. 49 – col. 8, ln. 14).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Forman, Fu and Fieldhouse to allow for the first version of the content asset to be associated with a first encoding algorithm and the second version of the content asset to be associated with a second encoding algorithm. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for desirable versions of different bitrates to be created.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in view of Fieldhouse.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 8-12 are rejected. Claims 14-25 are withdrawn from consideration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua D Taylor whose telephone number is (571)270-3755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 6 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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Joshua D Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 March 6, 2026