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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed on 04/30/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dahl et al (US 2020/0037014).
Regarding claim 1, Dahl discloses a method comprising:
receiving a manifest corresponding to content, the manifest comprising indications of storage locations for a first portion of the content, and one or more indications for a second portion of the content configured for just-in-time encoding (¶ [0013]-[0015] and ¶ [0085] for storing previously transcoded rendition segments and additionally storing selectively transcoded in advance first segment of each rendition in a rendition cache; and ¶ [0054]-[0055] and ¶ [0062] for providing/receiving a manifest file corresponding to AV file, the manifest file indicating/advertising a set of rendition encodings including a supported rendition in which the AV file is being offered for just-in-time transcoding rendition segments and comprising URL specifying storage locations of content segments at which to request playable segments);
sending a request for a content segment of the second portion of the content, the request comprising an indication of a requested format of the content segment of a plurality of formats for the content segment (¶ [0010]-[0013], ¶ [0027], ¶ [0062]-[0063] and ¶ [0089] for requesting a playback segment specifying a requested rendition format in a set of advertised rendition encodings of the AV file); and
receiving an encoded version of the content segment (¶ [0010]-[0011], ¶ [0013], ¶ [0073], ¶ [0076] and ¶ [0085] for transmitting/receiving a transcoded rendition segment of the AV file content) wherein the encoded version of the content segment was previously encoded as another encoded format of the plurality of formats, wherein the encoded version of the content segment is further encoded in response to the request (¶ [0009]-[0010], ¶ [0025]-[0026] and ¶ [0029]-[0031] for the transcoded rendition segment was previously transcoded in mezzanine format and stored in mezzanine cache, the transcoded rendition segment is further encoded in response to the request), and wherein the encoded version comprises a timestamp of the previously encoded version of the content segment (¶ [0038]-[0042] for the previously transcoded mezzanine segments having their corresponding timestamps; and ¶ [0056] and ¶ [0073]-[0074] for the transcoded rendition segments also having the same timestamps as their corresponding previously transcoded mezzanine segments).
Regarding claim 2, Dahl discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Dahl further discloses wherein the requested format comprises a medium bit
rate (MBR) format, or a low bit rate (LBR) format (¶ [0026], ¶ [0035]-[0036], ¶ [0046], ¶ [0057] and ¶ [0090]).
Regarding claim 3, Dahl discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Dahl further discloses wherein the other format comprises a high bit rate (HBR) format (¶ [0025], ¶ [0046] and ¶ [0090]).
Regarding claim 4, Dahl discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Dahl further discloses wherein the content segment is not stored in the
requested format (mezzanine cache in Figure 1; ¶ [0009]-[0010] and ¶ [0013]).
Regarding claim 5, Dahl discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Dahl further discloses wherein the content segment is stored in the other format (mezzanine cache in Figure 1; ¶ [0009]-[0010], ¶ [0025] and ¶ [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, Dahl discloses a method, comprising:
sending a manifest corresponding to a content, the manifest comprising indications of storage locations for a first portion of the content, and one or more indications for a second portion of the content configured for just-in-time encoding (¶ [0013]-[0015] and ¶ [0085] for storing previously transcoded rendition segments and additionally storing selectively transcoded in advance first segment of each rendition in a rendition cache; and ¶ [0054]-[0055] and ¶ [0062] for providing/receiving a manifest file corresponding to AV file, the manifest file indicating/advertising a set of rendition encodings including a supported rendition in which the AV file is being offered for just-in-time transcoding rendition segments and comprising URL specifying storage locations of content segments at which to request playable segments);
receiving a request for a content segment of the second portion of the content, the request comprising an indication of a requested format of the content segment of a plurality of formats for the content segment (¶ [0010]-[0013], ¶ [0027], ¶ [0062]-[0063] and ¶ [0089] for requesting a playback segment specifying a requested rendition format in a set of advertised rendition encodings of the AV file);
determining the requested format is to be sent as a just-in-time encoded format (¶ [0009]-[0010], ¶ [0013] and ¶ [0068] for identifying the requested rendition is absent from rendition cache and absent from an assignment to transcode, so as to initiate a just-in-time transcoding process); and causing to be sent an encoded version of the content segment (¶ [0010]-[0011], ¶ [0013], ¶ [0073], ¶ [0076] and ¶ [0085] for transmitting/receiving a transcoded rendition segment of the AV file content), wherein the encoded version of the content segment was previously encoded as another encoded format of the plurality of formats, wherein the encoded version of the content segment is further encoded in response to the request (¶ [0009]-[0010], ¶ [0025]-[0026] and ¶ [0029]-[0031] for the transcoded rendition segment was previously transcoded in mezzanine format and stored in mezzanine cache, the transcoded rendition segment is further encoded in response to the request), and wherein the encoded version comprises a timestamp of the previously encoded version of the content segment (¶ [0038]-[0042] for the previously transcoded mezzanine segments having their corresponding timestamps; and ¶ [0056] and ¶ [0073]-[0074] for the transcoded rendition segments also having the same timestamps as their corresponding previously transcoded mezzanine segments).
Regarding claim 7, Dahl discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 6. Dahl further discloses wherein determining the format is to be sent as the just-in-time encoded format further comprises determining the content segment is not stored in the requested format (mezzanine cache in Figure 1; ¶ [0009]-[0010] and ¶ [0013]).
Regarding claim 8, Dahl discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 6. Dahl further discloses wherein the determination occurs via a manifest for the content segment (¶ [0054]-[0055] and ¶ [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 10, Dahl discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 6. Dahl further discloses causing the content segment in the other format to be encoded in response to the request (Figure 1).
Regarding claims 15-17 and 19, all limitations of claims 15-17 and 19 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claims 6-8 and 10 respectively.
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 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl et al (US 2020/0037014) in view of Hannuksela (US 2016/0191931).
Regarding claim 9, Dahl discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 8. Dahl further discloses the determination occurs via a manifest (¶ [0054]-[0055] and ¶ [0062]-[0063]), but is silent about via a supplemental property field of the manifest.
Hannuksela discloses the determination of needed characteristics occurs via a supplemental property field of the manifest (¶ [0500]-[0504]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dahl system with the teaching of Hannuksela about determination occurs via a supplemental property field of the manifest, so to provide an alternative way of providing additional encoding information in the manifest using supplemental property field as a matter of designed choices.
Regarding claim 18, all limitations of claim 18 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claim 9.
Claims 11-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl et al (US 2020/0037014) in view of Pfeifer et al (US 2022/0408125).
Regarding claim 10, Dahl discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 6. Dahl is silent about receiving another request for another content segment; determining a user device associated with the other request is implementing hot playback of content segments; and refraining from causing to be sent an encoded version of the other content segment.
Pfeifer discloses receiving another request for another content segment; determining a user device associated with the other request is implementing hot playback of content segments; and refraining from causing to be sent an encoded version of the other content segment (¶ [0003]-[0004], ¶ [0038], ¶ [0046]-[0049], ¶ [0067]-[0068] and ¶ [0074]-[0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dahl system with the teaching of Pfeifer, so to reduce transcoding requests for future requests of the same target format.
Regarding claim 12, Dahl in view of Pfeifer discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 11. The combined system further discloses causing to be sent the other content segment in a format indicated in the other request, wherein the other content segment is stored in the format indicated in the other request (Dahl’s Figures 1-2; and taught by Pfeifer; ¶ [0026], ¶ [0052] and ¶ [0070]).
Regarding claim 13, Dahl in view of Pfeifer discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 11. The combined system further discloses wherein determining the user device associated with the other request is implementing hot playback of content segments comprises identifying one or more previous content segments of a content profile associated with the other content segments; and determining of the one or more previous content segments were requested by the user device with a same formatting as the other content segment (taught by Pfeifer; ¶ [0025], ¶ [0036], ¶ [0048], ¶ [0068] and ¶ [0075]-[0076]).
Regarding claim 14, Dahl in view of Pfeifer discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 11. The combined system further discloses wherein hot playback comprises implementing a recording and playback of content segments concurrently (taught by Pfeifer; ¶ [0025], ¶ [0036], ¶ [0048], ¶ [0068] and ¶ [0075]-[0076]).
Regarding claim 20, all limitations of claim 20 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI L DUBASKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/GIGI L DUBASKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights