DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 12 JANUARY 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s current amendment (dated 12 JANUARY 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-2, 11, 15-18, and 20-30 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference(s) and/or citations being used in the current rejection.
Examiner’s Note
It is noted to Applicant that Allowable subject matter has been indicated in related Application 16/195,996. Applicant is suggested to try and incorporate similar Allowable content into the current Application’s claims to try and move prosecution forward to an Allowance. Applicant is also cautioned not to repeat allowable subject matter in a manner that could lead to a double patenting rejection. This is just a note and suggestion by the Examiner, any amendments made by Applicant will be searched thoroughly before a final indication on Allowability is made.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-2, 11, 17-18, 20-21, 23, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Good, US 2014/0376623 in view of Friedrich et al., US 2015/0288730 and further in view of Yamagishi, US 2018/0146252.
Regarding claim 1, Good discloses a method of configuring an Integrated Receiver Decoder (IRD) in an HTTP live streaming (HLS) network (media server can receive, decode, and re-encode the media, i.e. interpreted as an integrated receiver decoder, based on received parameters from computing device/controller; page 4, paragraph 31, and wherein with use of HLS protocol; page 4, paragraph 29, and page 5, paragraph 48), the IRD providing content to a plurality of subscriber devices over a content delivery network (media server, i.e. IRD, is connected and provides to a plurality of subscriber devices; Fig. 2, elements 150 and 270, and page 3, paragraph 24, and page 4, paragraph 33, and with use of content delivery network; Fig. 2, element 282, and page 3, paragraph 25) the method comprising the steps of:
(a) initiating a configuration event notification by a Network Controller (initiating configuration from a network controller; page 5, paragraph 46, Fig. 2, element 110);
(b) information included in an HLS playlist file (information is included in manifest/playlist; page 4, paragraph 32, and with use of HLS protocol; page 4, paragraph 29, and page 5, paragraph 48);
(c) sending the HLS playlist file to the IRD (manifest/playlist can be sent to media server, i.e. IRD including a decoder; page 4, paragraph 32, and can also be sent to other receivers/decoders; page 4, paragraph 32, and with use of HLS protocol; page 4, paragraph 29, and page 5, paragraph 48);
(d) retrieving the HLS playlist file at the IRD (manifest/playlist can be sent to media server, i.e. IRD including a decoder, thereby allowing it to be retrieved by server/IRD; page 4, paragraph 32, and can also be sent/retrieved to/by other receivers/decoders; page 4, paragraph 32, and with use of HLS protocol; page 4, paragraph 29, and page 5, paragraph 48); and
(e) using information to configure the IRD (executing the configuration parameters at the media server, i.e. IRD, in order to generate the content; page 5, paragraph 46).
Good does not explicitly disclose a broadcast network controller (BNC);
embedding a configuration event notification into an HLS playlist file;
using the configuration event notification in the HLS playlist file to retrieve configuration information; and
using the configuration information to configure.
In a related art, Friedrich does disclose a broadcast network controller (BNC) (with network controller, i.e. server; Fig. 2, element 220, and page 4, paragraphs 46-47, and including broadcasting; page 1, paragraph 1, and page 2, paragraph 29);
embedding configuration information into an HLS playlist file (configuration information included in an HLS manifest, i.e. playlist; page 2, paragraph 26, and page 3, paragraphs 38-39, and with HTTP live streaming and decoding; page 3, paragraph 38, and page 1, paragraph 13); and
using the information in the HLS playlist file to retrieve configuration information, and using the configuration information to configure (with configuration from manifest, i.e. retrieving and using the configuration commands, including at least decoder/output configurations such as SPS, PPS, and ADTS; page 2, paragraph 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Good and Friedrich, by allowing specific configuration information to be sent from a network in a specific way, in order to provide an improved system and method of preparing content for adaptive bitrate streaming (Friedrich; page 1, paragraphs 1 and 11).
Good in view of Friedrich does not explicitly disclose embedding a configuration event notification, and using the configuration event notification to retrieve configuration information.
In a related art, Yamagishi does disclose embedding a configuration event notification in a playlist (event information/notification recorded, i.e. embedded, into an MPD, i.e. playlist; page 13, paragraphs 255, 264, and 268, and page 16, paragraphs 338-339 and 342-343, and wherein specifically with event notification(s) for configuration(s); pages 10-11, paragraphs 206-213, and page 13, paragraphs 255 and 268, and page 16, paragraph 339); and
using the configuration event notification in the playlist to retrieve configuration information (reception apparatus can utilize the information/notification in the MPD, i.e. playlist, in order to configure/perform certain operations; page 13, paragraphs 254 and 268, and page 17, paragraph 359, and wherein reception apparatus can include a television, server, etc.; page 4, paragraph 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Good, Friedrich, and Yamagishi by allowing configuration event notifications/information to be sent in a playlist file, such as the playlist file(s) already disclosed in Good in view of Friedrich, in order to provide an improved system and method which has event notification data stored in an MPD/playlist, with a reception apparatus acquiring this data from the MPD/playlist and performing rapid application control (Yamagishi; see abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Good in view of Friedrich and Yamagishi discloses the configuration information comprises decoder command and control event notification information comprising one or more of authorization, content selection, and output configuration (Friedrich; including at least decoder/output configurations such as SPS, PPS, and ADTS, and Good; configuration parameter(s) can include output CODEC, bitrate, etc., i.e. output configurations(s); page 5, paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 11, Good in view of Friedrich and Yamagishi discloses the IRD executes commands from the configuration information retrieved using the HLS playlist file (Friedrich; with configuration for the decoder, i.e. execution of the configuration commands; page 2, paragraph 26, and again with configuration information included in the HLS manifest, i.e. playlist; page 2, paragraph 26, and page 3, paragraphs 38-39, and Good; executing the configuration parameters at the media server, i.e. IRD, in order to generate the content; page 5, paragraph 46, and Yamagishi; reception apparatus can utilize the information in the MPD, i.e. playlist, in order to configure/perform certain operations; page 13, paragraphs 254 and 268, and page 17, paragraph 359, and wherein reception apparatus can include a television, server, etc.; page 4, paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 17, Good in view of Friedrich and Yamagishi discloses initiating a configuration event notification is scheduled in advance or requested by the BNC or BNC proxy (Friedrich; controller system can initiate configuration event(s) based on provided data, i.e. requests; page 2, paragraph 24, and Good; configuration based on input by user at network controller, i.e. requested; page 4, paragraph 32, and page 5, paragraph 42).
Regrading claim 18, Good in view of Friedrich and Yamagishi generating a proprietary file to the CDN for retrieval by a decoder (Friedrich; system can generate proprietary file(s); page 1, paragraphs 14-17).
Regrading claim 20, Good in view of Friedrich and Yamagishi discloses the configuration information is provided in addition to configuration information provided by a BNC in a satellite broadcast system (Friedrich; with broadcasting; page 1, paragraph 1, and page 2, paragraph 29, and with HTTP live streaming and decoding; page 3, paragraph 38, and page 1, paragraph 13, and configuration information as part of the manifest/playlist; col. 3, lines 53-66, and wherein network(s) can also include those with cellular access, in-home, etc.; pages 3-4, paragraph 45, and Good; with satellite communication(s); page 5, paragraph 40, and Yamagishi; information recorded, i.e. embedded, into an MPD, i.e. playlist; page 13, paragraphs 255, 264, and 268, and page 16, paragraphs 338-339 and 342-343, and wherein specifically with event notification(s) for configuration(s); pages 10-11, paragraphs 206-213, and page 13, paragraphs 255 and 268, and page 16, paragraph 339).
Claim 21, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 1 and 11.
Claim 23, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 11.
Claim 26, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 1 and 21. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
an IRD comprising an input and a processor (Good; Fig. 2, element 150, see input side for reception from controller, and also including processor; Fig. 2, elements 150 and 151); and
from a remote location (Friedrich; from server, i.e. remote location, page 4, paragraph 54, and Yamagishi; based on information which can include URL/address information, i.e. from a remote location; page 4, paragraphs 70 and 75, and page 5, paragraph 96).
Claim 28, which discloses a decoder, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 11.
Claims 15-16, 24-25, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Good, US 2014/0376623 in view of Friedrich et al., US 2015/0288730 and Yamagishi, US 2018/0146252, and further in view of Swenson et al., US 2008/0101466.
Regarding claim 15, Good in view of Friedrich and Yamagishi discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1 as well as the IRD (Good; media server can receive, decode, and re-encode the media, i.e. interpreted as an integrated receiver decoder, based on received parameters from computing device; page 4, paragraph 31).
Good in view of Friedrich and Yamagishi does not explicitly disclose generating a report file at the device, the report file comprising one or more of current and historical device configuration, health and status information.
In a related art, Swenson does disclose generating a report file at the device, the report file comprising one or more of current and historical device configuration, health and status information (decoder report/feedback can be generated based on the current operations/status/configurations of the decoder; page 7, paragraph 62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Good, Friedrich, Yamagishi, and Swenson by allowing feedback of decoder operations to be provided in the system already disclosed in Good in view of Friedrich and Yamagishi, in order to provide an improved system and method for dynamic encoding based on feedback from a decoder and/or network conditions (Swenson; page 1, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 16, Good in view of Friedrich, Yamagishi, and Swenson discloses receiving and processing the report file at the BNC for system configuration, event logging, and the like (Swenson; sent to, i.e. received at server; page 7, paragraph 62, and wherein used to update encoding parameters/configurations, i.e. system configurations; page 7, paragraph 58, and with tracking, i.e. logging; page 6, paragraph 54, and Friedrich; with network controller, i.e. server; Fig. 2, element 220, and page 4, paragraphs 46-47, and Good; from a network controller; page 5, paragraph 46, Fig. 2, element 110).
Claim 24, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 15.
Claim 25, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 16.
Claim 29, which discloses a decoder, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 15.
Claim 30, which discloses a decoder, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 16.
Claims 22 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Good, US 2014/0376623 in view of Friedrich et al., US 2015/0288730 and Yamagishi, US 2018/0146252, and further in view of Badawiyeh, US 2019/0069004.
Regarding claim 22, Good in view of Friedrich and Yamagishi discloses all the claimed imitations of claim 21.
Good in view of Friedrich and Yamagishi does not explicitly disclose the configuration notification is written in an HLS playlist file as an SCTE-35 message.
In a related art, Badawiyeh does disclose the configuration notification is written in an HLS playlist file as an SCTE-35 message (HLS manifest/playlist can have SCTE-35 type cues/messages, i.e. notifications, included for configuration; page 15, paragraph 185, and page 16, paragraph 186).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Good, Friedrich, Yamagishi, and Badawiyeh by allowing certain types of messages/indications to be included in the already present playlists/manifests of Good in view of Friedrich and Yamagishi, in order to provide an improved system and method for enhancing user experience through reduced switching delays during content changes (Badawiyeh; page 3, paragraph 22).
Claim 27, which discloses a decoder, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 22.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424