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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 1, Applicant submits that the cited prior art does not teach amendments to the claim. Remarks, p. 7.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC §103 over a combination of Qureshi et al. (US 9578395) and Moorthy et al. (US 2014/0040496).
As presented in the claim rejections of claim 1 under 35 USC §103, Qureshi teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system and from a computing device, a request for a manifest file associated with a content asset (Col. 4, lines 17-29, “A user of the user device 102 may employ the content presentation module 104, a web browser, or other application to generate a content request 106. The content request 106 may request a video file or other content to be presented in the content presentation module 104. In some cases, the content request 106 may identify a network address, location, or name of a parent manifest corresponding to video content.” Col. 4, lines 30-47, “The content request 106 may be communicated over one or more networks to one or more content server device(s) 108.” Figs. 1, 7),
sending, by the computing system and to the computing device, a response to the request (Col. 3, lines 1-27, “Implementations reduce the delay in presentation of video content by incorporating the contents of one or more of the rendition manifests into the response to the request for content, thus avoiding one or more network requests to retrieve the rendition manifest files separately from network locations listed in the parent manifest file.” Col. 5, lines 6-17, “The manifest processing module 112 may modify the parent manifest 114 to replace the URL(s) of one or more rendition manifest files with one or more references to rendition manifest(s) 116 that are included in a response 118.” Col. 13, lines 1-4, “At 708, the response 118 including the parent manifest 114 and one or more embedded rendition manifests 116 may be communicated to the user device 102 in response to the content request 106.” Fig. 7),
wherein the response comprises the manifest file associated with the content asset and the first portion of the content asset (Col. 8, lines 17-57, “Implementations also support serializing or otherwise incorporating the data of one or more of the content portions 120 into the response 118. For example, the response 118 may include a rendition manifest 116 as a Data URI, and the rendition manifest 116 may include one or more references 204 to content portion(s) 120 (e.g., chunks) that are also included as Data URI(s) in the response 118. By embedding the content portion(s) 120 into the response 118, some implementations may avoid the additional network request for the content portion(s) 120 and further reduce the latency of content presentation. In some implementations, the data of one or more first content portion(s) 120 (e.g., chunks) of the content may be incorporated inline in the response 118 to reduce the time to first frame during content presentation. Implementations support the use of any method for incorporating the rendition manifest(s) 116, or the content portion(s) 120, into the response 118. Such methods may include the use of Data URIs, JSON objects, images, or other data types.”).
Moorthy teaches a request for a manifest comprises an indication of a preferred content resolution for a first portion of content asset, and selecting, by a computing system and based on the indication of the request, the first portion of the content asset comprising an initial content resolution ([0020], “When the client device 108 requests the manifest file that corresponds to a particular bitrate and/or resolution, the request for the manifest file at the particular bitrate and/or resolution can be utilized as an indication to implicitly change the bitrate and/or resolution that is represented by that manifest file.” [0019], “the segments of the video content are generated responsive to any requested bitrate and/or resolution from the client device. The segments of the video content can be generated by encoding, transcoding, packaging, and/or any other type of modifying the video content.” [0031], [0033], ” At block 306, segments of the video content are generated at the bitrate and/or resolution responsive to the request from the client device” [0034], “At block 308, the segments of the video content are communicated to the client device at the requested bitrate and/or resolution.” Figs. 3-4).
In view of Moorthy’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qureshi to include wherein the request for the manifest comprises an indication of a preferred content resolution for a first portion of the content asset, and selecting, by a computing system and based on the indication of the request, the first portion of the content asset comprising an initial content resolution. The modification would serve to facilitate selection of content of a preferred quality. The modification would serve to improve the user experience.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-8, 13, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Qureshi et al. (US 9578395) and Moorthy et al. (US 2014/0040496).
Regarding claim 1, Qureshi teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system and from a computing device, a request for a manifest file associated with a content asset (Col. 4, lines 17-29, “A user of the user device 102 may employ the content presentation module 104, a web browser, or other application to generate a content request 106. The content request 106 may request a video file or other content to be presented in the content presentation module 104. In some cases, the content request 106 may identify a network address, location, or name of a parent manifest corresponding to video content.” Col. 4, lines 30-47, “The content request 106 may be communicated over one or more networks to one or more content server device(s) 108.” Figs. 1, 7),
sending, by the computing system and to the computing device, a response to the request (Col. 3, lines 1-27, “Implementations reduce the delay in presentation of video content by incorporating the contents of one or more of the rendition manifests into the response to the request for content, thus avoiding one or more network requests to retrieve the rendition manifest files separately from network locations listed in the parent manifest file.” Col. 5, lines 6-17, “The manifest processing module 112 may modify the parent manifest 114 to replace the URL(s) of one or more rendition manifest files with one or more references to rendition manifest(s) 116 that are included in a response 118.” Col. 13, lines 1-4, “At 708, the response 118 including the parent manifest 114 and one or more embedded rendition manifests 116 may be communicated to the user device 102 in response to the content request 106.” Fig. 7),
wherein the response comprises the manifest file associated with the content asset and the first portion of the content asset (Col. 8, lines 17-57, “Implementations also support serializing or otherwise incorporating the data of one or more of the content portions 120 into the response 118. For example, the response 118 may include a rendition manifest 116 as a Data URI, and the rendition manifest 116 may include one or more references 204 to content portion(s) 120 (e.g., chunks) that are also included as Data URI(s) in the response 118. By embedding the content portion(s) 120 into the response 118, some implementations may avoid the additional network request for the content portion(s) 120 and further reduce the latency of content presentation. In some implementations, the data of one or more first content portion(s) 120 (e.g., chunks) of the content may be incorporated inline in the response 118 to reduce the time to first frame during content presentation. Implementations support the use of any method for incorporating the rendition manifest(s) 116, or the content portion(s) 120, into the response 118. Such methods may include the use of Data URIs, JSON objects, images, or other data types.”).
Qureshi does not expressly teach wherein the request for the manifest file comprises an indication of a preferred content resolution, a preferred content audio language, or a combination thereof, for a first portion of the content asset, and selecting, by the computing system and based on the indication of the request, the first portion of the content asset comprising an initial content resolution, an initial content bit rate, an initial content audio language, or a combination thereof.
Moorthy teaches a request for a manifest comprises an indication of a preferred content resolution for a first portion of content asset, and selecting, by a computing system and based on the indication of the request, the first portion of the content asset comprising an initial content resolution ([0020], “When the client device 108 requests the manifest file that corresponds to a particular bitrate and/or resolution, the request for the manifest file at the particular bitrate and/or resolution can be utilized as an indication to implicitly change the bitrate and/or resolution that is represented by that manifest file.” [0019], “the segments of the video content are generated responsive to any requested bitrate and/or resolution from the client device. The segments of the video content can be generated by encoding, transcoding, packaging, and/or any other type of modifying the video content.” [0031], [0033], ” At block 306, segments of the video content are generated at the bitrate and/or resolution responsive to the request from the client device” [0034], “At block 308, the segments of the video content are communicated to the client device at the requested bitrate and/or resolution.” Figs. 3-4).
In view of Moorthy’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qureshi to include wherein the request for the manifest comprises an indication of a preferred content resolution for a first portion of the content asset, and selecting, by a computing system and based on the indication of the request, the first portion of the content asset comprising an initial content resolution. The modification would serve to facilitate selection of content of a preferred quality. The modification would serve to improve the user experience.
Regarding claim 8, Qureshi teaches a method comprising:
sending, by a computing device and to a computing system, a request for a manifest file associated with a content asset (Col. 4, lines 17-29, “A user of the user device 102 may employ the content presentation module 104, a web browser, or other application to generate a content request 106. The content request 106 may request a video file or other content to be presented in the content presentation module 104.” Col. 4, lines 30-47, “The content request 106 may be communicated over one or more networks to one or more content server device(s) 108.” Figs. 1, 7); and
receiving, by the computing device and from the computing system, a response to the request comprising the manifest file associated with the content asset, and a first portion of the content asset (Col. 3, lines 1-27, “Implementations reduce the delay in presentation of video content by incorporating the contents of one or more of the rendition manifests into the response to the request for content, thus avoiding one or more network requests to retrieve the rendition manifest files separately from network locations listed in the parent manifest file.” Col. 5, lines 6-17; Col. 13, lines 1-4, “At 708, the response 118 including the parent manifest 114 and one or more embedded rendition manifests 116 may be communicated to the user device 102 in response to the content request 106.” Col. 8, lines 17-57, “Implementations also support serializing or otherwise incorporating the data of one or more of the content portions 120 into the response 118. For example, the response 118 may include a rendition manifest 116 as a Data URI, and the rendition manifest 116 may include one or more references 204 to content portion(s) 120 (e.g., chunks) that are also included as Data URI(s) in the response 118. By embedding the content portion(s) 120 into the response 118, some implementations may avoid the additional network request for the content portion(s) 120 and further reduce the latency of content presentation. In some implementations, the data of one or more first content portion(s) 120 (e.g., chunks) of the content may be incorporated inline in the response 118 to reduce the time to first frame during content presentation. Implementations support the use of any method for incorporating the rendition manifest(s) 116, or the content portion(s) 120, into the response 118. Such methods may include the use of Data URIs, JSON objects, images, or other data types.” Fig. 7).
Qureshi does not expressly teach wherein the request for the manifest comprises an indication of a preferred content resolution, a preferred content audio language, or a combination thereof, for a first portion of the content asset, wherein the first portion of the content asset is selected by the computing system based on the indication of the request.
Moorthy teaches a request for a manifest comprises an indication of a preferred content resolution for a first portion of content asset, wherein the first portion of the content asset is selected by a computing system based on the indication of the request ([0020], “When the client device 108 requests the manifest file that corresponds to a particular bitrate and/or resolution, the request for the manifest file at the particular bitrate and/or resolution can be utilized as an indication to implicitly change the bitrate and/or resolution that is represented by that manifest file.” [0019], “the segments of the video content are generated responsive to any requested bitrate and/or resolution from the client device. The segments of the video content can be generated by encoding, transcoding, packaging, and/or any other type of modifying the video content.” [0031], [0033], ” At block 306, segments of the video content are generated at the bitrate and/or resolution responsive to the request from the client device” [0034], “At block 308, the segments of the video content are communicated to the client device at the requested bitrate and/or resolution.” Figs. 3-4).
In view of Moorthy’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qureshi to include wherein the request for the manifest comprises an indication of a preferred content resolution for a first portion of the content asset, wherein the first portion of the content asset is selected by the computing system based on the indication of the request. The modification would serve to facilitate selection of content of a preferred quality. The modification would serve to improve the user experience.
Regarding claim 15, Qureshi teaches a computing device comprising:
one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Col. 3, lines 35-57; Col. 16, lines 10-36), cause the computing device to:
send, to a computing system, a request for a manifest file associated with a content asset (Col. 4, lines 17-29, “A user of the user device 102 may employ the content presentation module 104, a web browser, or other application to generate a content request 106. The content request 106 may request a video file or other content to be presented in the content presentation module 104.” Col. 4, lines 30-47, “The content request 106 may be communicated over one or more networks to one or more content server device(s) 108.” Figs. 1, 7),
receive, from the computing system, a response to the request comprising the manifest associated with the content asset, and a first portion of the content asset (Col. 3, lines 1-27, “Implementations reduce the delay in presentation of video content by incorporating the contents of one or more of the rendition manifests into the response to the request for content, thus avoiding one or more network requests to retrieve the rendition manifest files separately from network locations listed in the parent manifest file.” Col. 5, lines 6-17; Col. 13, lines 1-4, “At 708, the response 118 including the parent manifest 114 and one or more embedded rendition manifests 116 may be communicated to the user device 102 in response to the content request 106.” Col. 8, lines 17-57, “Implementations also support serializing or otherwise incorporating the data of one or more of the content portions 120 into the response 118. For example, the response 118 may include a rendition manifest 116 as a Data URI, and the rendition manifest 116 may include one or more references 204 to content portion(s) 120 (e.g., chunks) that are also included as Data URI(s) in the response 118. By embedding the content portion(s) 120 into the response 118, some implementations may avoid the additional network request for the content portion(s) 120 and further reduce the latency of content presentation. In some implementations, the data of one or more first content portion(s) 120 (e.g., chunks) of the content may be incorporated inline in the response 118 to reduce the time to first frame during content presentation. Implementations support the use of any method for incorporating the rendition manifest(s) 116, or the content portion(s) 120, into the response 118. Such methods may include the use of Data URIs, JSON objects, images, or other data types.” Fig. 7).
Qureshi does not expressly teach wherein the request for the manifest comprises an indication of a preferred content resolution, a preferred content audio language, or a combination thereof, for a first portion of the content asset, wherein the first portion of the content asset is selected by the computing system based on the indication of the request.
Moorthy teaches a request for a manifest comprises an indication of a preferred content resolution for a first portion of content asset, wherein the first portion of the content asset is selected by a computing system based on the indication of the request ([0020], “When the client device 108 requests the manifest file that corresponds to a particular bitrate and/or resolution, the request for the manifest file at the particular bitrate and/or resolution can be utilized as an indication to implicitly change the bitrate and/or resolution that is represented by that manifest file.” [0019], “the segments of the video content are generated responsive to any requested bitrate and/or resolution from the client device. The segments of the video content can be generated by encoding, transcoding, packaging, and/or any other type of modifying the video content.” [0031], [0033], ” At block 306, segments of the video content are generated at the bitrate and/or resolution responsive to the request from the client device” [0034], “At block 308, the segments of the video content are communicated to the client device at the requested bitrate and/or resolution.” Figs. 3-4).
In view of Moorthy’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qureshi to include wherein the request for the manifest comprises an indication of a preferred content resolution for a first portion of the content asset, wherein the first portion of the content asset is selected by the computing system based on the indication of the request. The modification would serve to facilitate selection of content of a preferred quality. The modification would serve to improve the user experience.
Regarding claim 5, the combination further teaches further comprising:
receiving, by the computing system and from the computing device, a request for a second portion of the content asset according to the sent manifest; and sending, by the computing system and to the computing device, and in response to the request for the second portion of the content asset, the second portion of the content asset (Qureshi: Col. 5, lines 37-57, “The content presentation module 104 may then access one of the rendition manifests 116 and determine the location (e.g., the URL) of one or more content portions 120 such as chunks of video content. The content presentation module 104 may generate and send one or more content portion requests 122 to the location(s) of the content portion(s) 120. The content portion request(s) 122 may be communicated to the content service module(s) 110 on the content server device(s) 108. The content service module(s) 110 may send the content portion(s) 120 to the user device 102 in response to the content portion request(s) 122.”).
Regarding claims 7, 13, and, 20, he combination further teaches wherein the first portion of the content asset comprises a video segment, an audio segment, a subtitle segment, a set of initialization headers corresponding to the content asset, or a combination thereof (Qureshi: Col. 5, line 58 to col. 6, line 15, “The content portion(s) 120 may comprise audio, video, audio-visual, or multimedia content files in any format, such as a version of the Waveform Audio File Format (WAV), the AU file format, the Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) formats such as MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MP3, MPEG-4, or MPEG-DASH formats, the Audio Video Interleave (AVI) format, and so forth. The content portion(s) 120 may also include interactive or graphics content, such as interactive games, widgets, controls, or any form of animation in any format, such as the Flash™ format provided by Adobe Systems of San Jose, Calif., United States. In some cases, the content portion(s) 120 may be MPEG-2 TS chunks.”).
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Qureshi, Moorthy, and Garfinkel (US 2021/0258624).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach determining, by the computing system, an expected time associated with processing the manifest by the computing device; wherein a size of the first portion of the content asset is based on the expected time.
Garfinkel teaches determining an expected time associated with processing, and wherein a size of a first portion of a content asset is based on the expected time ([0015], “The user device 120 may need a license to access the content asset.” [0021], “The first computing device 160a may be configured to determine a portion of the content asset. Determining the portion of the content asset may comprise determining a number of frames, segments, chunks, and/or groups of pictures (GOP) of the content asset, for example. The portion of the content asset may have a playback time and/or a streaming time that is equal to the determined time for the user device 120 to receive the license. The portion of the content asset may have a playback time and/or a streaming time that is equal to the determined time to process the license request. The portion of the content asset may have a playback time and/or a streaming time that is similar to (e.g., within 0-1 seconds, 0-3 seconds, 0-5 seconds, etc.) the determined time for the user device to receive the license and/or the determined time to process the license request. The portion of the content asset may have a size (e.g., file size, time duration, percent of the entire content asset, number of frames, number of packets, etc.) that will take a time equal to send as the determined time for the user device to receive the license and/or to process the license. The portion of the content asset may have a size that will take a time equal to stream as the determined time for the user device to receive the license and/or to process the license.” Figs. 2-3).
In view of Garfinkel’s teaching, 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 combination to include determining, by the computing system, an expected time associated with processing the manifest by the computing device; wherein a size of the first portion of the content asset is based on the expected time. The modification would serve to reduce delays in output of requested content assets by a user device. The modification would thereby improve the user experience.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein a size of the first portion of the content asset is based on an expected time associated with processing the manifest by the computing device.
Garfinkel teaches wherein a size of a first portion of a content asset is based on an expected time associated with processing ([0015], “The user device 120 may need a license to access the content asset.” [0021], “The first computing device 160a may be configured to determine a portion of the content asset. Determining the portion of the content asset may comprise determining a number of frames, segments, chunks, and/or groups of pictures (GOP) of the content asset, for example. The portion of the content asset may have a playback time and/or a streaming time that is equal to the determined time for the user device 120 to receive the license. The portion of the content asset may have a playback time and/or a streaming time that is equal to the determined time to process the license request. The portion of the content asset may have a playback time and/or a streaming time that is similar to (e.g., within 0-1 seconds, 0-3 seconds, 0-5 seconds, etc.) the determined time for the user device to receive the license and/or the determined time to process the license request. The portion of the content asset may have a size (e.g., file size, time duration, percent of the entire content asset, number of frames, number of packets, etc.) that will take a time equal to send as the determined time for the user device to receive the license and/or to process the license. The portion of the content asset may have a size that will take a time equal to stream as the determined time for the user device to receive the license and/or to process the license.” Figs. 2-3).
In view of Garfinkel’s teaching, 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 combination wherein a size of the first portion of the content asset is based on an expected time associated with processing the manifest by the computing device. The modification would serve to reduce delays in output of requested content assets by a user device. The modification would thereby improve the user experience.
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Qureshi, Moorthy, and MacInnis (US 2016/0134673).
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 19, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein a size of the first portion of the content asset comprises a size configured to have a playing time corresponding to an expected round trip time for the computing device to receive a second portion of the content asset.
MacInnis teaches wherein a bit rate of a first portion of a content asset comprises a bit rate configured to have a playing time corresponding to an expected round trip time for a computing device to receive a second portion of the content asset ([0046], “At step 322, the client 300 may monitor a performance of the network and/or performance of the client 300 and/or server 302. In many implementations, step 322 may be performed periodically or in parallel with steps 326-334 while the client device 300 is waiting to receive a segment and/or prior to transmitting a next request. … If the round trip time exceeds the nominal segment playback length (and the safety margin, in implementations using one), the next segment may be requested at a reduced bit rate. Conversely, if the round trip time is significantly less than the nominal segment playback length (e.g. less than 50% of the segment playback length, or any other such value), the next segment may be requested at an increased bit rate. Multiple thresholds may be set for any characteristic, and a quality or bitrate may be selected based on whether the characteristic exceeds one or more thresholds.”).
In view of MacInnis’s teaching, 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 combination wherein a size of the first portion of the content asset comprises a size configured to have a playing time corresponding to an expected round trip time for the computing device to receive a second portion of the content asset. The modification would enable a combined system to provide users with a content stream at the best quality without interruption.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Qureshi, Moorthy, and Simonin (US 2021/0368232).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach processing, by the computing device, the first portion of the content asset in parallel with the manifest.
Simonin teaches processing a first portion of the content asset in parallel with a manifest ([0082], “In step 1050 of processing an encrypted content, the audio/video reception equipment initiates, at date t1, three processes in parallel:” [0083], “a first process 1052 of downloading segments corresponding to a startup section of the manifest file;” [0084], “a second process 1054 of acquiring a decryption key;” [0085], “a third process 1056 of downloading the adapted segments, also called main segments, the content of which is encrypted.”).
In view of Simonin’s teaching, 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 combination to include processing, by the computing device, the first portion of the content asset in parallel with the manifest in order to improve system efficiency.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Qureshi, Moorthy, and Daniels (US 2005/0060756).
Regarding claim 14, Qureshi further teaches further comprising:
processing, by computing device, the manifest and the first portion of the content asset; and sending, by the computing device and to the computing system, a request for a second portion of the content asset according to the processed manifest (Col. 5, lines 37-57, “The content presentation module 104 may then access one of the rendition manifests 116 and determine the location (e.g., the URL) of one or more content portions 120 such as chunks of video content. The content presentation module 104 may generate and send one or more content portion requests 122 to the location(s) of the content portion(s) 120. The content portion request(s) 122 may be communicated to the content service module(s) 110 on the content server device(s) 108. The content service module(s) 110 may send the content portion(s) 120 to the user device 102 in response to the content portion request(s) 122.” Col. 5, line 58 to col. 6, line 15, “On receiving the content portion(s) 120, the content presentation module 104 may cause the content portion(s) 120 to be presented (e.g., played) on a presentation device (e.g., a display) that is associated with the user device 102.”).
The combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein the sending the request for the second portion of the content asset occurs during the processing of the first portion of the content asset.
Daniels teaches sending a request for a second portion of a content asset during a processing of a first portion of the content asset ([0194], “The first received segment is played by the DVR for display on a display device (step five). Simultaneously during the playing of the first received segment, a second received segment of the received multimedia data signal is received from the multimedia network source and stored on the DVR while the first received segment is played the display device (step six).”).
In view of Daniels’ teaching, 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 combination wherein the sending the request for the second portion of the content asset occurs during the processing of the first portion of the content asset. The modification would enable content to be nearly instantaneously displayed after the request for it is made (Daniels: [0194]).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MICHAEL R TELAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5940. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at (571) 272-4195. 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.
/MICHAEL R TELAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426