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
This office action is responsive to application No. 17/926,481 filed on 08/28/25. Claim(s) 1-19 is/are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 06/20/2025 is/are considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) Applicant asserts on P.7-11 that “A technical advantage achieved by the invention of claim 1 includes reducing the resources used to communicate determined media objects to client devices by identifying commonly used objects and sending those over multicast in a composite object… If anything, Athsani's clear and repeated reliance on broadcasts (i.e. one-to-all communications) teaches away from the unicasts (i.e., one-to-one communications) required by claim 1… Segel's mere disclosure of selecting between different content distribution modes such as broadcast, switched broadcast, multicast, and unicast clearly does not disclose the combination of the multicast and unicast communications explicitly required by claim 1, even when combined with Athsani.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the case of unicasting, broadcasting and/or multicasting, all forms listed are a certain form/type of transmission, with well known advantages and disadvantages. Some of which is recited in the motivation given with the combination of Segel. Additionally, scattered in Segel are recitations in regards to multicasting and unicasting, including but not limited to:
[0004]… The content distribution mode may include any content distribution mode, such as broadcast, switched broadcast, multicast, unicast, and the like…
[0015] Since networks providing content distribution in the distribution modes (e.g., broadcast, multicast, unicast) will have certain capacity constraints, the present invention chooses which content items to distribute, which content destination nodes the content items should be distributed to, when the content items should be distributed, and which distribution mode to use to distribute the content items in a manner tending to optimize usage of the constrained network capacity…
[0036]…Multicast reaches all content distribution nodes that are subtended from a multicast replication point. Unicast reaches one content distribution node…
[0062] The CDS 150 determines the distribution schedule for the content items by selecting, for each content item, a content distribution mode by which the content item will be distributed, and, optionally, a distribution time of the content item. The distribution mode selected for a content item is one of broadcast distribution, switched broadcast distribution, multicast distribution, unicast distribution, and the like. The distribution time selected for a content item is the time at which the content item is propagated from the source of the content item to the content destination node(s) for which the content item is intended.
From Segel, we can see a system that can choose to transmit content in either unicast and/or multicast, as well as see the differences between unicasting and/or multicasting. The references used need not have the same motivation as Applicant’s specifications. In this case, knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention as made, would be able to see the advantages of utilizing unicast and/or multicast.
Applicant’s state that a technical advantage achieved by the invention of claim 1, includes reducing resources… by identifying commonly used objects and sending those over multicast… for which Segel similarly teaches, including, but not limited to [0065-0068] where particular transmission mode is selected based on utility and fan-out of the content item. Items having a higher fan-out are distributed via broadcast, intermediate fan-out distributed using multi-cast, and lowest fan-out distributed using unicast. [0094] teaches where fan-out value indicates number of content destination nodes which may consider the content item to be useful, and the like.
Applicant further asserts that “If anything, Athsani's clear and repeated reliance on broadcasts (i.e. one-to-all communications) teaches away from the unicasts (i.e., one-to-one communications) required by claim 1”. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Broadcast is essentially just one type of a myriad of ways to transmit content. Just because Athsani recites use of broadcasting, but does not explicitly recite the use of unicasting, does not mean that Athsani teaches away from unicasts. Nor would it be unable to be modified by Segel, as the content item(s) are still being transmitted/provided albeit via a different communication method. As evidenced in Segel, unicasting may be chosen when there may be less of a need for the items from destination nodes. And multicasting may be chosen when there may be more of a need for the item(s) from destination nodes. Similarly, when Athsani is modified by Segel, we can see the advantage where communication of item(s) may also be taken into consideration to be unicasted instead of being broadcasted/multi-casted depending on the fan-out of destination nodes that may consider content item useful. As both Athsani and Segel relate to transmission of content, one of ordinary skill in the art, would readily see the applicability, benefits, and advantages resulting from the combination of Segel with Athsani.
Athsani teaches already teaches the transmission of plurality of media objects, including a default object, transmission of a composite of the default object and at least one other media object. The combination of Segel with Athsani would provide for a combined system that would take into account various factors for determining when to utilize uncasting and/or multicasting in the transmission of content(s). Thus, utilizing a combination of multicast and unicast communications.
On P.10, Applicant asserts that “…unicast delivery may be employed for a non-identified media object [e.g., a less-popular media object] possibly only to a few consumers who have specifically requested them or who are deemed likely to enjoy or benefit from them.” Segel similarly, utilizes unicast delivery when there is a low number of destination nodes that may consider the content item useful [0069], [0094].
B) Applicants assert on P.11-12 that “These above portions of Segel merely identify a cost or marginal value MV of delivering a content item and do not disclose or suggest applying a rule comprising identifying at least one other media object by the individual bandwidth cost of the at least one other media object. Segel therefore fails to resolve the admitted deficiency of Athsani with respect to "wherein the application of the rule comprises identifying at least one other media object by using individual bandwidth cost of the at least one other media object" as recited by claim 1.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Including, but not limited to the cited paragraphs [0059] and [0074], we see that this takes into account calculation of utility, which applies to the content in question. The marginal value of delivering a particular content item is taken into account. Where content item may be calculated or determined to have a greater marginal utility. Taking into account the size of the content item, opportunity cost of the item, etc. There is a measure of cost associated with delivery of the content in question, where a share of network resources will be consumed by sending the content item. Thus, bandwidth cost of the content item is covered in these paragraphs, as all those are identified and taken into account for the content item. These calculations/determinations aid in identifying that the content item is appropriate and of particular utility and value, by taking all those factors into account.
Based on the above, and the Office Action below. The combination of Athsani and Segel continue to teach the claimed limitation(s).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 13-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athsani et al. (US 2009/0148124) in view of Segel (US 2009/0168752).
Consider claims 1 and 13, Athsani teaches a computer-implemented method and apparatus for media content distribution (Paragraph 0009, 0183-0187) comprising:
at least one interface configured to provide a plurality of media objects to consumer devices, the media objects including a default object, for selection by, communication to, and rendering by said consumer devices (Paragraph 0054-0055 teaches multimedia content published by the feedback mechanism maybe in the form of a single feed, composite feeds and/or feeds that are mixed or re-mixed. Paragraph 0092 teaches Multiple Streams Interface, MSI, is completely configurable by the Consuming Users, CUs, to populate their own screens. CUs can select streams to add to their personal MSI. CUs can do this one at a time, or by selecting specific groups of streams, e.g. most popular, etc. Paragraph 0058 teaches CUs receiving and rendering the multimedia content. Paragraph 0094 teaches CU may click on a stream to indicate his/her interest in a particular stream. CUs can increase the ranking and prominence of a particular stream in the composite streams by the clicking action); and
at least one interface configured to receive metadata from a plurality of the consumer devices indicating an extent of use of at least a subset of the media objects by said consumer devices; a processor configured to apply a rule relating to the consumption of media objects by the consumer devices to the metadata (Paragraph 0183 teaches embodiments of present invention may be practiced with various computer system configurations including hand-held devices, microprocessor systems, microprocessor based or programmable consumer electronics, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like. Paragraph 0095 teaches aggregating CUs actions and communicating the aggregated feedback to the GUs. Paragraph 0105 teaches modifying individual or related stream’s ranking based on actions, interactions, and communication events between and among all GUs, CUs, and Mixers. Paragraph 0121 teaches all actions and interactions by CUs are tracked and logged by the Switching Engine, SE. SE aggregates the CUs actions at the receiving device and interactions with other Users and feeds into a core ranking algorithm for multimedia streams throughout the SE’s network of GUs and CUs connected in real-time), wherein the application of the rule comprises identifying at least one other media object by using the frequency of use of the at least one other media object (Paragraph 0115 teaches the switching process enables production of composite stream in real-time based upon ranking of the captured media streams according to the number of multimedia consuming users and their feedback for each stream, including ways to cluster streams based upon popularity, etc. Paragraph 0119 teaches using ranking algorithms to rank the multimedia stream based on each CUs viewing duration, each CUs view ratings and other factors. Paragraph 0121 teaches the core ranking algorithm may use tagging, view count, interestingness, social network filter of popularity by person, and geo-based metrics, to rank and prioritize the multimedia streams. Paragraph 0123 teaches real-time interactions including asynchronous interactions with a multimedia stream, which is a strong indicator of success, in user and stream transaction logs, user rankings and future component default scoring. As the specific multimedia streams accumulate successful hits, these multimedia streams increase in popularity. Paragraph 0139 teaches the more popular a stream is, based upon the current and/or total-over-time CU interaction); and
responsive to the application of the rule, to generate a composite of the default object and the at least one other media object identified by the application of the rule for multicast communication to at least a subset of the consumer devices; send the composite of the default object and the at least one other media object identified by the application of the rule via multicast communication to the least a subset of the consumer devices (Paragraph 0115 teaches production of composite stream in real-time based upon ranking of the captured media streams according to the number of multimedia consuming users and their feedback for each stream, including ways to cluster streams based upon popularity, location, subject content, and user reactions. Paragraph 0126 teaches SE generates composite streams based on the relative rankings of the multimedia content and users and hands the composite streams back to the FE for delivery to specific CU or sets of CUs);
Athsani does not explicitly teach wherein communication is unicast communication;
wherein the application of the rule comprises identifying at least one other media object by using individual bandwidth cost of the at least one other media object;
send another media object, which is different from the at least one other media object identified by the application of the rule, via unicast communication to the least a subset of the consumer devices after the application of the rule to identify the at least one other media object.
In an analogous art, Segel teaches wherein communication is unicast communication (Paragraph 0014 teaches content distribution mode may include modes such as multicast mode, unicast mode, and the like. Paragraph 0036 teaches unicast reaches one content distribution node);
wherein the application of the rule comprises identifying at least one other media object by using individual bandwidth cost of the at least one other media object (Paragraph 0059 teaches incorporating marginal value of delivering a content item, taking into account size of content items, where larger content items represent an opportunity cost if network capacity is constrained, i.e., in that other less resource-intensive content items could have been delivered instead of the larger content item. Paragraph 0074 teaches distribution may be based on network status information associated with the cost of delivering the content item, e.g., in terms of network resources or some other measure of cost, such as the size of the content item and the associated share of network resources that will be consumed by sending the content item, and the like);
send another media object, which is different from at least one other media object identified by the application of a rule, via unicast communication to the least a subset of the consumer devices after the application of the rule to identify the at least one other media object (Paragraph 0014 teaches selecting a mode of delivery for a content item based on probability of utility of the content item, e.g., that the content item is, will be, or may be useful, to one or more content destination nodes and a number of content destination nodes which may want the content item. Paragraph 0030 teaches content item may include any content work or segment of a content work, as well as any other forms of content. Paragraph 0038 teaches feeding back information identifying content items which are or may be useful to content destination nodes. Paragraph 0040 teaches useful content items for content destination nodes may be determined in any manner, e.g., based on one or more requests for content items, prediction of requests for content items, predictions of request for content items expected to be received, recommendations of content items, and the like. Paragraph 0041 teaches prediction which content items are likely to be of interest to the end user, by basing predictions on analysis of various factors, such as past content consumed, observed patterns of consumption from other users, etc. Paragraph 0064 teaches selection of content distribution mode for a content item based on the content utility prediction information for the content item. Paragraph 0067 teaches content items having lowest fanout values are distributed using unicast. Paragraph 0069 teaches using unicast mode if the content item is intended for distribution to only one content destination node. Fig.3B, Paragraph 0100 teaches multiple content items. Content item D with a fan-out of 1 is selected for unicast distribution. Based on utility and fan-out of content item, particular mode of distribution is selected. In the case of content item D, rule determined that it had a lower fan-out, likely that only one end user terminal, EUT, is interested in the content item).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Athsani to include wherein communication is unicast communication; wherein the application of the rule comprises identifying at least one other media object by using individual bandwidth cost of the at least one other media object; send another media object, which is different from at least one other media object identified by the application of a rule, via unicast communication to the least a subset of the consumer devices after the application of the rule to identify the at least one other media object, as taught by Segel, for the advantage of distributing content items in a manner tending to optimize usage of constrained network capacity (Segel – Paragraph 0015), providing efficient use of network resources, in turn driving service capabilities and controls costs, both of which are important for service providers (Segel – Paragraph 0103), providing to receiver/client dedicated communication and/or content, that may be different from what other receivers/clients receive, allowing for greater differentiation in content provision, as well as added flexibility in what and when content may be provided.
Consider claims 2 and 15, Athsani and Segel teach wherein rule identifies a metric for each media object of at least a subset of media objects corresponding to an extent of network resource involved in communicating the media object to consumer devices selecting the media object (Segel – Paragraph 0059, 0074; Paragraph 0026, 0040-0042).
Consider claims 3 and 16, Athsani and Segel teach wherein the rule includes: the selection of media objects by consumer devices; the frequency of selection of media objects by consumer devices; and/or the extent of the selection of media objects by consumer devices (Athsani - Paragraph 0094 teaches CU may click on a stream to indicate his/her interest in a particular stream. CUs can increase the ranking and prominence of a particular stream in the composite streams by the clicking action. Paragraph 0095 teaches aggregating CUs actions and communicating the aggregated feedback to the GUs. Paragraph 0105 teaches modifying individual or related stream’s ranking based on actions, interactions, and communication events between and among all GUs, CUs, and Mixers. Paragraph 0121 teaches all actions and interactions by CUs are tracked and logged by the Switching Engine, SE. SE aggregates the CUs actions at the receiving device and interactions with other Users and feeds into a core ranking algorithm for multimedia streams throughout the SE’s network of GUs and CUs connected in real-time. Paragraph 0115 teaches production of composite stream in real-time based upon ranking of the captured media streams according to the number of multimedia consuming users and their feedback for each stream, including ways to cluster streams based upon popularity, location, subject content, and user reactions).
Consider claim 4, Athsani and Segel teach wherein each media object includes content suitable for rendering including one or more of: video; audio; static graphics; dynamic graphics; interactive graphics; text; virtual representations of content; composites of multiple other media objects (Athsani - Paragraph 0069, 0126).
Consider claims 6 and 18, Athsani and Segel teach further comprising the default object is provided to the consumer devices by multicast communication prior to the generation of the composite of the default object and the at least one other media object (Athsani - Paragraph 0054-0055, 0115, 0126).
Consider claims 7 and 19, Athsani and Segel teach wherein the composite of the default object and at least one other media object is provided for multicast communication as an updated default object (Athsani – Paragraph 0115, 0126).
Consider claim 8, Athsani and Segel teach wherein the composite of the default object and at least one other media object is provided for multicast communication in one multicast stream to at least the subset of the consumer devices (Athsani – Paragraph 0115, 0126).
Consider claim 9, Athsani and Segel teach wherein the composite of the default object and at least one other media object is provided for multicast communication in a plurality of multicast streams to at least the subset of the consumer devices (Athsani – Paragraph 0115, 0126).
Consider claim 10, Athsani and Segel teach wherein the consumer devices are networked devices (Athsani - Fig.2A, Paragraph 0058) configured to receive streamed unicast and multicast communication of media objects (Athsani – Paragraph 0054-0055, 0115, 0126; Segel – 0014, 0036).
Consider claim 14, Athsani and Segel teach a non-transitory computer program element comprising computer program code to, when loaded into a computer system and executed thereon, cause the computer to perform the steps of a method as claimed in Claim 1 (Athsani – Paragraph 0183-0186).
Claim(s) 5, 11, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athsani et al. (US 2009/0148124), in view of Segel (US 2009/0168752), and further in view of Forecaster5G.
Consider claims 5 and 17, Athsani and Segel teach the method being performed (Athsani – Paragraph 0009, 0054-0055, 0092-0094, 0115, 0126), but do not explicitly teach so as to reduce a resource consumption required for communication of the selected media objects to the at least a subset of the consumer devices.
In an analogous art, Forecaster5G teaches so as to reduce a resource consumption required for communication of selected media objects to at least a subset of consumer devices (P.2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Athsani and Segel to include so as to reduce a resource consumption required for communication of selected media objects to at least a subset of consumer devices, as taught by Forecaster5G, for the advantage of alleviating the effect on the network load when conventional IP unicast streaming techniques are used, using a hybrid of multicast and unicast, where bandwidth-heavy objects are best delivered over a multicast path, whilst personalization and/or bandwidth-light objects are better delivered over unicast (Forecaster5G – P.2-3), decreasing overall network load on the system, and providing more efficient delivery of content.
Consider claim 11, Athsani and Segel do not explicitly teach wherein the consumer devices are configured to combine and render media objects received via unicast and multicast communication.
In an analogous art, Forecaster5G teaches wherein consumer devices are configured to combine and render media objects received via unicast and multicast communication (P.1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Athsani and Segel to include wherein consumer devices are configured to combine and render media objects received via unicast and multicast communication, as taught by Forecaster5G, for the advantage of using a hybrid of multicast and unicast, where bandwidth-heavy objects are best delivered over a multicast path, whilst personalization and/or bandwidth-light objects are better delivered over unicast (Forecaster5G – P.2-3), while still being able to provide personalization/customization to many users without severely impacting/degrading the network.
Consider claim 12, Athsani, Segel, and Forecaster5G teach wherein the consumer devices are further configured to output and/or play rendered media content (Athsani - Paragraph 0058, 0070; Forecaster5G – P.1-3).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON K LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1446. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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 on 571-272-7527. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON K LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425