DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 16, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-22 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 9, and 12 are currently amended. Claims 8 and 16 have been canceled. No new claims are currently added.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the Applicants’ Remarks dated October 16, 2025:
Regarding the rejection of claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and claims 1-7, 9-15, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been fully considered. Applicants argue at pages 7-8 of the Remarks as filed, regarding claim 17 that “In the Response to Arguments, the Patent Office asserts that “Wolfram makes it clear in at least paragraph [0052] that publishing the single content entity (claimed “file”) includes sending an index ... and sending one or more streaming servers the different bitrate encodings.” Office Action, p. 3. However, an index or manifest only provides a listing of different representations available for the content. It does not actually include the content at the different representations itself”. However, in the very next paragraph, Applicants appear to admit that Wolfram actually teaches this feature. In particular, Applicants admit that “Furthermore, while Wolfram teaches sending the streaming servers the different bitrate encodings, Applicant disagrees that such a statement anticipates the claim. Instead, Wolfram teaches bitrate encodings for the content entity may be stored within content entity storage 630. Wolfram, 972. Wolfram teaches that the “content streaming server 630 may receive these encodings from a content management system.” /d. Wolfram further teaches that the content management system “publishes the encodings to the appropriate streaming servers.” /d. However, nothing in Wolfram teaches that the content streaming server receives the multiple bitrate encodings of the content entity in a single file”. Therefore, it appears that while Applicants agree that Wolfram teaches sending the file comprising multiple bitrate encodings, the file is not a “single” file. However, there is no reference in the claim for a “single” file as argued and it is noted that transmission of files in computer networks commonly includes breaking the file into segments or chunks for transmission in packets. While cited paragraph of the specification mentions that combining the different bitrates for each segment into a single file would somehow reduce the system overhead and individual network transactions on the network, it is well known that a huge single file such as one of a 120 minute video with 7 bitrates would not be transmitted as a single file, but rather broken into multiple segments, transmitted in pieces, and then reassembled on the receiver end. There is no description of how a huge single file can be transmitted as a monolith.
Examiner notes that Applicants still failed to explain how a file or a single file is patentably distinct from “single content entity” of Wolfram that is mapped to the claimed “single file”. Therefore, Applicant’s argument cannot be held as persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicants argue at page 11 of the Remarks, as filed, with respect to claim 1 that
“Mayhew teaches that the server receives a first request from a client device as part of a first communication session between the server and the client device. Id. Mayhew teaches that the first request is for segments of a media assets at a first bit rate. Id. Based on a latency value of the system, Mayhew teaches that the client device may send a second request as part of a second communication session between the server and the client device for segments of the media asset at a second bitrate. Id. at par.38”. Examiner disagrees. There is nothing in paragraph 38 or any other sections of Mayhew that would identify the server and the client device as having a first or a second communication sessions. Mayhew is simply silent with respect to session establishment procedure between the server and the client device and Applicant’s argument is based on speculation. To this extend, Examiner agrees that Mayhew fails to teach the session establishment procedure between the server and the client device that would utilize a first socket connection between the user device and the computing device to provide an uninterrupted communication session.
Applicants argue at page 12 of the Remarks, as filed, with respect to claim 1 that “the Patent Office goes on to allege, that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to “allow for higher and lower bitrate that is accomplished by changing resolution of requested content.” However, Mayhew does not suffer the problem alleged by the Patent Office and has no need for the alleged teachings of Lotfallah. As such, Applicant traverses this alleged motivation to combine”. Examiner disagrees. Mayhew is clearly suffering the problem of network latency and is directed to adaptively reducing bitrate of the streamed media to minimize playback stalling (par. [0001]). Therefore, reducing quality of the streamed audio is directly related to the problem that Mayhew attempts to address. Thus, Applicant’s argument cannot be held as persuasive.
As to any arguments not specifically addressed, they are the same as those discussed above or were previously addressed in the Office action dated 05/22/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wolfram et al. (US 2014/0098850 A1).
As to claim 17, Wolfram teaches a method comprising:
determining, by a computing device [content management system], a plurality of representations for content [generating multiple bitrate encodings of the received master content] (par. [0041]);
receiving the content encoded according to the plurality of representations [these encodings are sent further down the line to content entity encoder generator 340 and content entity publisher 350] (Fig.3);
generating a file comprising a plurality of first portions of the content encoded according to the plurality of representations [different bitrate encodings are grouped under a content entity identifier as a single content entity] (par. [0043]-[0046]); and
sending, to a second computing device [content delivery system], the file comprising, the plurality of the first portions of the content encoded according to the plurality of representations [publishing the single content entity to the content delivery system 360, 610, where the publishing includes sending to one or more streaming servers the different bitrate encodings] (par. [0046]-[0047], [0052], Figs. 3, 4, 6).
As to claim 18, Wolfram teaches that the plurality of representations comprise a first representation associated with first video resolution and a second representation
associated with a second video resolution different from the first video resolution (par. [0024], [0028], [0031], [0041]).
As to claim 19, Wolfram teaches that the plurality of representations comprise a first representation associated with a first audio resolution and a second representation
associated with a second audio resolution different from the first audio resolution (par. [0024], [0028], [0031], [0041]).
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, 9-11, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayhew et al. (US 2021/0195290 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2014/0351385 A1) and in further view of Gutmans (US 2005/0149529 A1).
As to claim 1, Mayhew teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and from a user device, in a communication session, a request for a first portion of content at a first representation [first request for segments of a media asset to be streamed at a first bit rate] (par. [0037], Figs. 1 and 2);
sending, to the user device, the first portion of the content at the first representation [send transcoded first portion in step 208] (par. [0038], Fig. 2);
receiving, by the computing device and from the user device, in the communication session, a second request for a second portion of the content at a second representation [second request for second portion to be transcoded at a second bitrate based on the measured network bandwidth] (par. [0038], step 214); and
sending, to the user device, in the communication session, the second portion of the content at the second representation, wherein the computing device comprises the first representation of the content and the second representation of the content [transmit the second portion (or plurality of chunks comprising the second portion) to the client device in step 220] (par. [0038], Fig. 2).
While Mayhew teaches first and second bitrates, Mayhew fails to expressly show that the first representation is being associated with a first video resolution and the second representation is being associated with a second video resolution different from the first video resolution. Mayhew also fails to teach that sending a receiving between the server 102 and client device 104 are performed via a first socket connection of a communication session that is uninterrupted.
Li is directed to generating one or more local AV representations for providing content segments for the AV content to connected devices (abstract). In particular, Li teaches having a first AV representation associated with a first video resolution and a second AV representation associated with a second video resolution different from the first video resolution [different AV representations have different resolutions] (par. [0025], [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Mayhew by having the first representation being associated with a first video resolution and the second representation being associated with a second video resolution different from the first video resolution in order to generate different AV representations that have different resolution as an alternative to different bit rate to accomplish the same function of adapting content based on that format and/or current network conditions (par. [0031] in Li).
Li also teaches initiating an HTTP session between the client device and ABR proxy that serves the client device requested content (Fig. 2, par. [0023], [0024]), wherein the connection between the user device [client device 104] and the computing device [ABR proxy 202] provides an uninterrupted communication session between the computing device and the user device [once the session is initiated, the session is maintained while segment n is requested at bitrate A and subsequent segments n+1 are requested at bitrate B (par. [0027]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Mayhew by forming a connection of a communication session between the server 102 and client 104 in Mayhew, wherein the connection between the user device and the computing device provides an uninterrupted communication session between the computing device and the user device in order to maintain a connection between the client and the server that is a foundation of TCP/IP transport on which HTTP is run.
Mayhew in view of Li fails to expressly teach that the HTTP session uses a first socket connection.
It is notoriously old and well known that HTTP uses TCP to establish a reliable connection and transfer data, where HTTP is an application layer protocol that sits on top of TCP, which is a transport layer protocol. To this extend, Gutmans teaches establishing a communication channel, typically a TCP session between the client and the server using the network, via a conventional client connection socket (par. [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Mayhew in view of Li by having the HTTP session of Li utilize a first socket connection of the communication session in order to establish said session that requires use of connection sockets as per TCP protocol specification.
As to claim 2, Mayhew teaches receiving, from the user device, a request to initiate the communication session [first request is a request to initiate a communication session] (par. [0033], Fig. 1); and
initiating the communication session with the user device [server receiving the request and providing the response in step 108] (par. [0033], Fig. 1).
As to claim 3, Mayhew teaches that the first portion of the content comprises a segment of the content (par. [0034]).
As to claim 5, Mayhew teaches that the first representation is associated with a first bit rate, wherein the second representation is associated with a second bit rate, and wherein the first bit rate is different than the second bit rate (par. [0042]).
As to claim 9, Mayhew teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and from a user device, in a communication session, a request for a first portion of content at a first representation [first request for segments of a media asset to be streamed at a first bit rate] (par. [0037], Figs. 1 and 2);
sending, to the user device, the first portion of the content at the first representation [send transcoded first portion in step 208] (par. [0038], Fig. 2);
receiving, by the computing device and from the user device, in the communication session, a second request for a second portion of the content at a second representation [second request for second portion to be transcoded at a second bitrate based on the measured network bandwidth] (par. [0038], step 214); and
sending, to the user device, in the communication session, the second portion of the content at the second representation, wherein the computing device comprises the first representation of the content and the second representation of the content [transmit the second portion (or plurality of chunks comprising the second portion) to the client device in step 220] (par. [0038], Fig. 2).
While Mayhew teaches first and second bitrates, Mayhew fails to expressly show that the first representation is being associated with a first audio resolution and the second representation is being associated with a second audio resolution different from the first audio resolution. Mayhew also fails to teach that sending a receiving between the server 102 and client device 104 are performed via a first socket connection of a communication session that is uninterrupted.
Li is directed to generating one or more local AV (audio/video) representations for providing content segments for the AV content to connected devices (abstract). In particular, Li teaches having a first AV representation associated with a first video resolution and a second AV representation associated with a second video resolution different from the first video resolution [different AV representations have different resolutions] (par. [0025], [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Mayhew by having the first representation being associated with a first video resolution and the second representation being associated with a second video resolution different from the first video resolution in order to generate different AV representations that have different resolution as an alternative to different bit rate to accomplish the same function of adapting content based on that format and/or current network conditions (par. [0031] in Li).
Li also teaches initiating an HTTP session between the client device and ABR proxy that serves the client device requested content (Fig. 2, par. [0023], [0024]), wherein the connection between the user device [client device 104] and the computing device [ABR proxy 202] provides an uninterrupted communication session between the computing device and the user device [once the session is initiated, the session is maintained while segment n is requested at bitrate A and subsequent segments n+1 are requested at bitrate B (par. [0027]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Mayhew by forming a connection of a communication session between the server 102 and client 104 in Mayhew, wherein the connection between the user device and the computing device provides an uninterrupted communication session between the computing device and the user device in order to maintain a connection between the client and the server that is a foundation of TCP/IP transport on which HTTP is run.
Mayhew in view of Li fails to expressly teach that the HTTP session uses a first socket connection.
It is notoriously old and well known that HTTP uses TCP to establish a reliable connection and transfer data, where HTTP is an application layer protocol that sits on top of TCP, which is a transport layer protocol. To this extend, Gutmans teaches establishing a communication channel, typically a TCP session between the client and the server using the network, via a conventional client connection socket (par. [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Mayhew in view of Li by having the HTTP session of Li utilize a first socket connection of the communication session in order to establish said session that requires use of connection sockets as per TCP protocol specification.
As to claims 10-11, and 13, Mayhew in view of Li and Gutmans teaches all the elements as discussed per claims 2-3, and 5 above.
As to claim 22, Mayhew in view of Li and Gutmans teaches creating a socket connection between the computing device and the user device for maintaining the communication session (par. [0037] in Gutmans, as discussed above with respect to claim 1).
Claims 4, 6, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayhew et al. in view of Li et al., Gutmans, and in further view of Wolfram et al.
As to claims 4 and 12, Mayhew teaches generating, based on the file, a second file comprising the first portion of the content at the first representation, wherein sending the first portion of the content comprises sending, to the user device, the file (par. [0037] in Mayhew).
Mayhew in view of Li and Gutmans fails to expressly teach receiving, by the computing device, a file comprising the first portion of the content at a plurality of representations comprising the first representation.
Wolfram is directed to managing multiple bitrate encodings for multiple content consumption platforms (abstract). In particular, Wolfram teaches receiving, by the computing device [content delivery system], a file comprising the first portion of the content at a plurality of representations comprising the first representation [multiple bitrate encodings of the master content is received from content management system and sent to content consumption device] (par. [0050], Figs. 2 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Mayhew in view of Li and Gutmans by receiving, by the computing device, a file comprising the first portion of the content at a plurality of representations comprising the first representation in order to offload content adaptation from the server device of Mayhew onto another device such as media content source 616 of Mayhew (Fig. 6).
As to claims 6 and 14, Mayhew in view of Li and Gutmans teaches all the elements except that the request for the first portion of content further comprises a request for the first portion of the content at a third representation associated with a first audio resolution, wherein the second request for the second portion of the content further comprises a request for the second portion of the content at a fourth representation associated with a second audio resolution different from the first audio resolution, wherein sending the first portion of the content further comprises sending the first portion of the content at the first representation and the third representation, and wherein sending the second portion of the content further comprises sending the second portion of the content at the second representation and the fourth representation.
Wolfram is directed to managing multiple bitrate encodings for multiple content consumption platforms (abstract). In particular, Wolfram teaches the request for the first portion of content further comprises a request for the first portion of the content at a third representation associated with a first audio resolution, wherein the second request for the second portion of the content further comprises a request for the second portion of the content at a fourth representation associated with a second audio resolution different from the first audio resolution, wherein sending the first portion of the content further comprises sending the first portion of the content at the first representation and the third representation, and wherein sending the second portion of the content further comprises sending the second portion of the content at the second representation and the fourth representation [adapting audio by converting from .wav to .mp3 format during compression] (par. [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Mayhew in view of Li and Gutmans by having the request for the first portion of content further comprise a request for the first portion of the content at a third representation associated with a first audio resolution, wherein the second request for the second portion of the content further comprises a request for the second portion of the content at a fourth representation associated with a second audio resolution different from the first audio resolution, wherein sending the first portion of the content further comprises sending the first portion of the content at the first representation and the third representation, and wherein sending the second portion of the content further comprises sending the second portion of the content at the second representation and the fourth representation in order to generate different encoding of an audio file and serve requested portion of audio content in a desired encoding (par. [0050] in Wolfram).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayhew et al. in view of Li et al., Gutmans, and in further view of Lotfallah et al. (US 2016/0050241 A1).
As to claim 7, Mayhew in view of Li and Gutmans fails to teach that the first video resolution comprises at least one of 480p, 576p, 720p, 1080p, 1440p, 4K, or 8K.
Lotfallah teaches that the first video resolution comprises at least one of 480p, 576p, 720p, 1080p, 1440p, 4K, or 8K (par. [0035], Figs. 4 and 5 in Lotfallah).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Mayhew in view of Li and Gutmans by having the first video resolution comprise at least one of 480p, 576p, 720p, 1080p, 1440p, 4K, or 8K in order to generate AV representations of Li in one of the commonly available formats.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfram et al. in view of Mayhew et al.
As to claim 20, Wolfram teaches all the elements except generating a header for the file, wherein the header comprises at least one of: an indication of a first representations of the first portion of the content in the file, a quantity of bytes associated with a first representation of the plurality of representations of the first portion of the content, or a run length for the first representation of the plurality of representations of the first portion of the content.
Mayhew teaches generating a header for the file, wherein the header comprises at least one of: an indication of a first representations of the first portion of the content in the file, a quantity of bytes associated with a first representation of the plurality of representations of the first portion of the content, or a run length for the first representation of the plurality of representations of the first portion of the content (par. [0007], [0011], [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Wolfram by generating a header for the file, wherein the header comprises at least one of: an indication of a first representations of the first portion of the content in the file, a quantity of bytes associated with a first representation of the plurality of representations of the first portion of the content, or a run length for the first representation of the plurality of representations of the first portion of the content in order to determine a time for transmission of a subsequent request by the client for a next segment of the streamed content (par. [0043] in Mayhew, par. [0074] in Wolfram).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayhew et al. in view of Li et al., Gutmans, and in further view of Lopes (US 2010/0287264 A1).
As to claim 21, Mayhew in view of Li and Gutmans teaches all the elements except for creating, based on the request, a network device; and sending, to the network device, the request.
It is noted that the steps of creating and sending appear to be completely separate from and are not integrated with the rest of the claim 1 from which claim 21 depends.
Lopes is directed to an enhanced network adapter framework (abstract). In particular, Lopes teaches creating, based on the request, a network device [instantiating a customized network adapter for a particular application making a service request] (par. [0006]); and sending, to the network device, the request (par. [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Mayhew in view of Li and Gutmans by creating, based on the request, a network device; and sending, to the network device, the request in order to create a network adapter that is customized for specific hardware and software entity making a request (par. [0045] in Lopes).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457