DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This office action is issued in response to communication filed on 12/08/25. Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/08/2025 with respect to rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been considered and are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully traverses applicant’s argument.
Applicant argues: “Applicant respectfully asserts that the cited references, taken alone or in hypothetical combination, at least fail to teach or suggest "remove the session identifier from the individual links associated with the media content," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1” (Applicant’s argument at page 10)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicates at page 7 of the Final Rejection dated 9/10/25, because of the “or” language, the second limitation “ or upon determining that the media content at the appropriate bitrate is cached: remove the session identifier from the individual links associated with the media content; log a presence of the viewing session; and provide the media content” is being considered as optional and not required by claim 1 as long as the other condition of the “or “ language is met. The amended claim 1 now recites
“upon determining that the media content at the appropriate bitrate is not cached, cache the media content at the appropriate bitrate; or upon determining that the media content at the appropriate bitrate is cached: remove the session identifier from the individual links associated with the media content; log a presence of the viewing session; and provide the media content.”
Lohmar, Myers and Strothmann teach every limitation of claim 1 including
“upon determining that the media content at the appropriate bitrate is not cached, cache the media content at the appropriate bitrate” as shown in Strothmann col 14, lines 42-57 that teaches the CDNs typically function by receiving requests from clients, checking a local cache for a copy of the requested resource, querying the origin server 514 if the requested video is not included in the cache or has expired and then returning the resource to the client and storing in in cache for use with future requests.
The examiner suggests amending the claim 1 from “or” to “[[or]]and” to overcome the rejection.
Suggested language: “upon determining that the media content at the appropriate bitrate is not cached, cache the media content at the appropriate bitrate; [[or]]and upon determining that the media content at the appropriate bitrate is cached: remove the session identifier from the individual links associated with the media content; log a presence of the viewing session; and provide the media content.”
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims are substantially encompassed in the argument above, therefore examiner responds with the same rationale as stated above.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the examiner maintains prior art rejections.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1,8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,6,8 and 15 respectively of US Patent 11,196,646 B2 hereinafter “646 patent” and further in view of Strothmann et al.(US Patent 9,253,299 B1, hereinafter “Strothmann”)
As to claims 1,8 and 15, the 646 patent claims 1,6, 8 and 15 teach every limitation of the instant claims 1,8 and 15 except : upon determining that the media content at the appropriate bitrate Is not cached, cache the media content at the appropriate bitrate.
However, Strothmann teaches upon determining that the media content at the appropriate bitrate is not cached, cache the media content at the appropriate bitrate.(Strothmann col 14, lines 42-57 teaches the CDNs typically function by receiving requests from clients, checking a local cache for a copy of the requested resource, querying the origin server 514 if the requested video is not included in the cache or has expired and then returning the resource to the client and storing in in cache for use with future requests)
Therefore , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of 646 patent claims 1,6, 8 and 15 with the teachings of Strothmann to achieve the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to optimize content delivery.(Strothmann col 14, lines 53-55)
Instant Application (17/469,602)
US Patent 11,196,646 B2
1. (Currently Amended) A system comprising: at least one processor; and memory including instructions for executing on the at least one processor to cause the system to: enable a viewing session for media content, the viewing session associated with an initial manifest comprising stored identifiers for a plurality of bitrates of the media content;
determine an appropriate bitrate from a selection provided by a device that received the initial manifest; modify, based at least on the selection, the initial manifest to generate a modified manifest that has a plurality of modified links of different bitrates from a modification to the stored identifiers, individual links of the modified links including a session identifier that is unique to the viewing session and to the appropriate bitrate of the different bitrates;
upon determining that the media content at the appropriate bitrate is not cached, cache the media content at the appropriate bitrate; or upon determining that the media content at the appropriate bitrate is cached: remove the session identifier from the individual links associated with the media content
log a presence of the viewing session; and provide the media content.
A system comprising: at least one processor and memory including instructions for executing on the at least one processor to cause the system to: open a viewing session for media content; generate an initial manifest comprising stored identifiers for a plurality of bitrates of the media content for the viewing session;
modify the initial manifest to generate a modified manifest that has a plurality of modified links from a modification to the stored identifiers, individual links of the modified links including a session identifier that is unique to the viewing session;
log a presence of the viewing session, for individual requests for the media content by a selection from the modified links; and provide the media content.
6. The system according to claim 1, wherein the memory including instructions for executing on the at least one processor further causes the system to: transfer the media content at a selected one of the plurality of bitrates in response to the individual requests.
Claims 8 and 15
Claims 6, 8, 15
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 1-3,5-10,12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmar et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2014/0149557 A1, hereinafter “Lohmar”) and further in view of Myers et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2013/0275557 A1, hereinafter “Myers”) and further in view of Strothmann et al.(US Patent 9,253,299 B1, hereinafter “Strothmann”)
As to claim 1, Lohmar teaches a system comprising: at least one processor; and memory including instructions for executing on the at least one processor to cause the system to: enable a viewing session for media content, the viewing session associated with an initial manifest comprising stored identifiers for a plurality of bitrates of the media content; (Lohmar par [0059] teaches the server generates a manifest file and forwards to the client. The manifest file comprises media bit rate candidates for the content segments)
determine an appropriate bitrate from a selection provided by a device that received the initial manifest; (Lohmar par [0059] teaches the client device selects one media bit rate of the given media data rate candidates and choses a bit rate for downloading the first segment which is slightly higher than the selected media bit rate)
modify, based at least on the selection, the initial manifest to generate a modified manifest that has a plurality of modified links of different bitrates from a modification to the stored identifiers, individual links of the modified links including a session identifier that is unique to the viewing session and to the appropriate bitrate of the different bitrates; (Lohmar par [0060] teaches after receiving feedback information indicating that the available bit rate has changed, the manipulating component 204 manipulates the manifest file by adjusting the media bit rate candidates based on the changed available bit rate between the server and the client and transmits the manipulated manifest file to the client);
upon determining that the media content at the appropriate bitrate is not cached, cache the media content at the appropriate bitrate; or
upon determining that the media content at the appropriate bitrate is cached: remove the session identifier from the individual links associated with the media content
log a presence of the viewing session; and provide the media content. (The examiner notes that this limitation is optional and is not required by the claim because of the “or” language)
Lohmar fails to expressly teach a session identifier that is unique to the viewing session.
However, Myers teaches a session identifier that is unique to the viewing session.(Myers par [0142] teaches unique identifier may be inserted into the manifest to include unique session identifier);
Lohmar and Myers are analogous art directed toward media streaming and both teachings operate the same as separately as in combination. Since the teachings were analogous art known before the effective filing date of claimed invention, one of ordinary skill would have combined the teaching Lohmar and Myers according to known methods to achieve the claimed invention and yield predictable results. One would have been motivated to make such combination to identify requests associated with particular session.(Myers par [0142])
Lohmar and Myers fail to expressly teach upon determining that the media content at the appropriate bitrate Is not cached, cache the media content at the appropriate bitrate.
However, Strothmann teaches upon determining that the media content at the appropriate bitrate is not cached, cache the media content at the appropriate bitrate.(Strothmann col 14, lines 42-57 teaches the CDNs typically function by receiving requests from clients, checking a local cache for a copy of the requested resource, querying the origin server 514 if the requested video is not included in the cache or has expired and then returning the resource to the client and storing in in cache for use with future requests)
Therefore , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Strothmann with the teachings of Lohmar and Myers to achieve the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to optimize content delivery.(Strothmann col 14, lines 53-55)
As to claim 2, Lohmar , Myers and Strothmann teach the system according to claim 1, wherein the memory including instructions for executing on the at least one processor further causes the system to: receive periodic requests for the initial manifest; and generating new modified manifests referencing updated segments of the media content, the new modified manifests to be provided to the device. (Lohmar par [0060] teaches after receiving feedback information indicating that the available bit rate has changed, the manipulating component 204 manipulates the manifest file by adjusting the media bit rate candidates based on the changed available bit rate between the server and the client and transmits the manipulated manifest file to the client )
As to claim 3, Lohmar , Myers and Strothmann teach the system according to claim 1, wherein the memory including instructions for executing on the at least one processor further causes the system to: determine the appropriate bitrate as associated with the device that is one of a computer, a television, a set-top box, a cellular telephone, a tablet, and a mobile device. (Lohmar par [0068] teaches mobile device)
As to claim 5, Lohmar, Myers and Strothmann teach the system according to claim 1, wherein the memory including 2 instructions for executing on the at least one processor further causes the system to: enable the modified manifest or a variant of the modified manifest to comprise the modified link from the modification to an appropriate one of the stored identifiers associated with the appropriate bitrate. (Lohmar par [0061] teaches the manifest file may comprise information indicating the download location of the content segments such as a particular URL)
As to claim 6, Lohmar , Myers and Strothmann teach the system according to claim 1, wherein the memory including instructions for executing on the at least one processor further causes the system to: provide the media content at the appropriate bitrate in response to a further selection from the device. (Lohmar par [0061] teaches the client receiving the manifest file can derive the download location of the content segments and can start downloading the content)
As to claim 7, Lohmar , Myers and Strothmann teach the system according to claim 1, wherein the memory including instructions for executing on the at least one processor further causes the system to: enable an application of the device to select the appropriate bitrate; and provide individual segments or fragments of the media content for playback in the device based in part on the appropriate bitrate (Lohmar par [0059] teaches the client starts downloading the content segments based on the media bit rate candidates indicated in the manifest file)
Claims 8-10 and 12-14 merely recite a computer method performed by the system of claims 1-3 and 5-7 respectively. Accordingly, Lohmar, Myers and Strothmann teach every limitation of claims 8-10 and 12-14 as indicates in the above rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-7 respectively.
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 merely recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions executed by the processor of claims 1-3 and 5-6 respectively. Accordingly, Lohmar , Myers and Strothmann teaches every limitation of claims 15-17 and 19-20 as indicates in the above rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-6 respectively.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmar , Myers , Strothmann and further in view of Gregotski.(US Patent Application Publication 2014/0280781 A1, hereinafter “Gregotski”)
As to claim 4, Lohmar , Myers and Strothmann teach the system according to claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the memory including instructions for executing on the at least one processor further causes the system to: enable the device to provide the selection as a selection for a variant manifest than the initial manifest, wherein the variant manifest comprises the appropriate bitrate for the media content.
However, Gregotski teaches wherein the memory including instructions for executing on the at least one processor further causes the system to: enable the device to provide the request as a request for a variant manifest than the initial manifest, wherein the variant manifest comprises the appropriate bitrate for the media content. (Gregotski par [0039] teaches basic variant playlist. Gregotski par [0047] teaches retrieving variant playlist)
Lohmar, Myers, Strothmann and Gregotski are analogous art directed toward media streaming and both teachings operate the same as separately as in combination. Since the teachings were analogous art known before the effective filing date of claimed invention, one of ordinary skill would have combined the teaching Lohmar, Myers , Strothmann and Gregotski according to known methods to achieve the claimed invention and yield predictable results. One would have been motivated to make such combination to maintain the streaming of content at a particular rate (Gregotski par [0039])
As to claims 11 and 18, see the above rejection of claims 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at 571-270-5871. 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.
/HIEN L DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147