DETAILED ACTION
Statement of claims
The present amended application includes:
Claims 21-25, 30-35 and 40 were amended.
Claims 21-40 remain pending in the application. Claims 21-40 are being considered on the merits.
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
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection
The amendments to the claims are clarified . Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection to the claims are withdrawn.
Patent Eligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues (page 9 ) that:
“ Applicant has amended the independent claims (and similarly the dependent claims) to recite patent eligible subject matter.” .
In response Examiner respectfully disagree and submit that:
Claims 21 and 30-31 taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functionality of the computer itself. Accordingly, the additional elements merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, In view of the amendment and applicant’s remarks, 101 rejection is not withdrawn. Applicant’s argument regarding the §101 is not found to be persuasive. Accordingly, the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Claims 21 and 30-31 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claims 1, 6 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, claims 21-40 appear to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues that:
“Applicant has amended independent claims 21 and 31 to recite, inter alia, "saving a playback location of the media content item in memory of the device, running the application, identifying that the application has exited, and based at least in part on identifying that the application has exited, restoring the device to a previous streaming state." It is respectfully submitted that Nakamura, either alone or in combination with any of Yen, Klements, and Bowra, fail to teach or render obvious at least these features. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that each of amended independent claims 21, 30 and 31 are patentable”
Examiner respectfully disagree and submit that: Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly added limitations have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the newly cited reference Gewickey et al. (US 2005/0041150) being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 21 recites A method comprising: “ comparing a resource requirement of the application to an available resource of the device”, “ determining whether the resource requirement is satisfied by the available resource; based at least in part on determining the resource requirement is satisfied by the available resource”. The limitations of “comparing ”, “determining” is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a resource requirement of the application”, “resource of the device”, “the available resource” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Under Prong 2,
The additional elements “receiving a request to run an application on a device while media content is being streamed, wherein the application is independent of the media content being streamed” , “ saving a playback location of the media content item in memory of the device”, “identifying that the application has exited,. Based at least in part on identifying that the application has exited, restoring the device to a previous streaming state” . which “… receiving …”, “saving …”, “identifying…”, , “restoring…”, amounts to data gathering and display which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements resource”, “ device”, “ tune manifest of the application”, “resource requirement”, ““computing facility” “to run an application”, “media content item”, “playback location” “application”, “device”, “media content”, “playback location” , “wherein the application is independent of the media content being streamed”, “wherein the resource requirement is retrieved from a tune manifest of the application”, “running the application” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
The limitations “… receiving …”, “saving …”, “identifying…”, , “restoring…”, are Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, claim 21 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Consequently, claim 1 is not eligible.
Further claim 22 recite the additional element “wherein: the identifying that the application has exited further comprises receiving an indication that the application is exited”, “ the restoring the device to the previous streaming state further comprises: retrieving the playback location of the media content from the memory of the device” “resuming playback of the media content.” are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 23 recite the additional element “wherein the saving the playback location of the media content item further comprises pausing the streaming of the media content.” amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field or use, and “ as result of said correlation is merely applying the judicial exception, is merely applying the judicial exception, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore, does not amount to significantly more, hence, cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 24 recite the additional element “wherein the saving the playback location of the media content item further comprises restricting a bit rate, and wherein the restoring the device to the previous streaming state comprises resuming streaming of the media content at an unrestricted bit rate..” amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field or use, and “ as result of said correlation is merely applying the judicial exception, is merely applying the judicial exception, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore, does not amount to significantly more, hence, cannot provide an inventive concept.
With regard to claims 25 it recites additional abstract idea of “determining a conflict between the resource requirement of the application and the available resource, generating for display a notification of the conflict” , is function that can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.
With regard to claims 25 it recites additional abstract idea of “generating a query for display as part of the notification of the conflict, wherein the query identifies a nature of the conflict and how to resolve the conflict.” , amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field or use, and “ as result of said correlation is merely applying the judicial exception, is merely applying the judicial exception, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore, does not amount to significantly more, hence, cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 27 recite the additional element “wherein the resource requirement is at least one of a hardware resource, a bandwidth capacity of a network to which the device is coupled, a number of windows that are concurrently displayable, a number of concurrently streaming content sources, or a number of concurrently running applications”, amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field or use, and “ as result of said correlation is merely applying the judicial exception, is merely applying the judicial exception, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore, does not amount to significantly more, hence, cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 28 recite the additional element “wherein the resource requirement is a bandwidth capacity of a home network to which the device is coupled.” amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field or use, and “ as result of said correlation is merely applying the judicial exception, is merely applying the judicial exception, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore, does not amount to significantly more, hence, cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 29 recite the additional element “ communicating between the device and a content distributor streaming the media content” amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field or use, and “ as result of said correlation is merely applying the judicial exception, is merely applying the judicial exception, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore, does not amount to significantly more, hence, cannot provide an inventive concept.
As to claim 30, Similar analysis as claim 21 is applied to claim 30 .
Further Claim 30 recites the additional element “determining a conflict between the resource requirement of the application and the available resource” , under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Further Claim 30 recites the additional element “generating for display a notification of the conflict” , “pausing the streaming of the media content, and wherein the previous streaming state includes resuming streaming of the media content” are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application) which “generating … “ and “pausing …” and “resuming…” are insignificant extra solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g).
As to claims 31-40,
Similar analysis as claims 21 and 30 is applied to claim 31 . Further Claim 1: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements “A system comprising: circuitry configured to”, which are merely recitations of generic computing components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The “A system comprising: circuitry configured to” is all mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). This does not integrate into a practical application, NOR does it provide significantly more.
Similar analysis as claims 22-30 is applied to claims 32-40.
For at least these reasons, claims 21-40 are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21, 25, 30-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims and 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 9,069,585 and U.S. Patent No 11749313. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See below for a detail comparison and explanation:
Current Application 18/221,077
U.S. Patent 9,069,585
1(Currently Amended) A method comprising:
receiving a request to run an application on a device while media content is being streamed by the device, wherein the application is independent of the media content being streamed;
comparing a resource requirement of the application to an available resource of the device, wherein the resource requirement is retrieved from a tune manifest of the application;
determining whether the resource requirement is satisfied by the available resource of the device;
based at least in part on determining the resource requirement is satisfied by the available resource of the device:
saving a playback location of the media content item in memory of the device;
running the application,identifying that the application has exited; and based at least in part on identifying that the application has exited, restoring the device to a previous streaming state.
25. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 21, comprising: based at least in part on in response to determining a conflict between the resource requirement of the application and the available resource, generating for display a notification of the conflict.
1. A method implemented in a device, the method comprising:
receiving a request at the device to run an application, the application having an associated tune manifest identifying one or more hardware resources of the device that the application may use;
comparing the tune manifest to a device resource record stored on the device; checking, based at least in part on the comparing, whether the one or more resources identified in the tune manifest can be satisfied by the device;
running the application if the one or more resources identified in the tune manifest can be satisfied by the device, otherwise presenting a notification of a conflict between the application and the device;
identifying when the application is exited; retrieving, in response to the application being exited, a device tune state that identifies a content source to which the device was tuned prior to running the application; and restoring the device to the device tune state including tuning the device to the content source.
2. A method as recited in claim 1, further comprising obtaining, in response to the request, the application from a remote service, and wherein the application includes the associated tune manifest.
30. A method of claim 21, comprising:
communicating between a device and a content distributor streaming media content; receiving a request to run an application on the device while the media content is being streamed by the device, wherein the application is independent of the media content being streamed;
comparing a resource requirement of the application to an available resource of the device; determining whether the resource requirement is satisfied by the available resource of the device;based at least in part on in response to determining a conflict between the resource requirement of the application and the available resource, generating for display a notification of the conflict; saving a playback location of the media content item in memory of the device; and based at least in part on in response to receiving an indication that the application is exited, restoring the device to a previous streaming state, wherein the saving the playback location of the media content item further comprises pausing the streaming of the media content, and wherein the previous streaming state includes resuming streaming of the media content.
Claims 21, 25 and 30-31 of the Current application are anticipated by patent No 9,069,585, claim 1 that contain all the limitations of claims 1-2 of the current application. the only differences between the current application and patent No 9,069,585, is the limitation of: media content is being streamed. However , Nakamura et al. (US 2006/0177197) teaches media content is being streamed ( para 12, “video stream recording and playback”) . Thus, 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 patent No 9,069,585 with Nakamura et al. (US 2006/0177197) because it “improves convenience for the user ) (See Nakamura para 59). Therefore claims 21 , 25 and 30-31 of the Current application are not patently distinct from the earlier patents claims and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Current Application 17/221,077
U.S. Patent 11749313
1(Currently Amended) A method comprising:
receiving a request to run an application on a device while media content is being streamed by the device, wherein the application is independent of the media content being streamed;
comparing a resource requirement of the application to an available resource of the device, wherein the resource requirement is retrieved from a tune manifest of the application;
determining whether the resource requirement is satisfied by the available resource of the device;
based at least in part on determining the resource requirement is satisfied by the available resource of the device:
saving a playback location of the media content item in memory of the device;
running the application, identifying that the application has exited; and based at least in part on identifying that the application has exited,
restoring the device to a previous streaming state.
25. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 21, comprising: based at least in part on in response to determining a conflict between the resource requirement of the application and the available resource, generating for display a notification of the conflict.
1. A method for resuming content playback, the method comprising:
receiving a request to run an application on a device during playback of media content on the device, wherein the media content is received from a content source; based on receiving the request to run the application:
determining resource requirements of the application; determining whether the resource requirements are satisfied by the device; in response to determining that resource requirements are satisfied by the device:
storing an indication that identifies the content source;
running the application, wherein playback of the media content is paused while the application is run; identifying when the application is exited; in response to identifying that the application is exited, retrieving the indication of the content source;
automatically accessing, using the device, the content source identified in the retrieved indication; and resuming playback of the media content.
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising: in response to determining that that resource requirements are not satisfied by the device, generating a notification of conflict for display, wherein the notification of conflict indicates a potential conflict in running the requested application.
30. A method of claim 21, comprising:
communicating between a device and a content distributor streaming media content; receiving a request to run an application on the device while the media content is being streamed by the device, wherein the application is independent of the media content being streamed;
comparing a resource requirement of the application to an available resource of the device;determining whether the resource requirement is satisfied by the available resource of the device;based at least in part on in response to determining a conflict between the resource requirement of the application and the available resource, generating for display a notification of the conflict; saving a playback location of the media content item in memory of the device; and based at least in part on in response to receiving an indication that the application is exited, restoring the device to a previous streaming state, wherein the saving the playback location of the media content item further comprises pausing the streaming of the media content, and wherein the previous streaming state includes resuming streaming of the media content.
Claims 21, 25 and 30-31 of the Current application are anticipated by patent No 9,069,585, claim 1 that contain all the limitations of claims 1-2 of the current application. the only differences between the current application and patent No 11749313, is the limitation of: media content is being streamed. However , Nakamura et al. (US 2006/0177197) teaches media content is being streamed ( para 12, “video stream recording and playback”) . Thus, 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 patent No 11749313 with Nakamura et al. (US 2006/0177197) because it “improves convenience for the user ) (See Nakamura para 59).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-23, 27-29, 31-33 and 37-39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2006/0177197, Nakamura hereinafter) in view of Yen et al. (US 2010/0017501, Yen hereinafter), Klemets et al. (US 2006/0059223, Klemets hereinafter) and Gewickey et al. (US 2005/0041150, Gewickey hereinafter).
As to claim 21, Nakamura teaches a method comprising:
receiving a request to run an application (e.g., “Program A”, FIG. 3) on a device while media content is being streamed (e.g., para 23, “an instruction for displaying a video is inputted”, “ receives and decodes the video stream, and outputs the decoded video signal to the display section 200 via a video output terminal 180. As a result, the user can watch playback of the video.
[0029] the program A from the recording medium 140. The video stream thus read out is outputted to the display section 200 via the decoder 150 and the video output terminal 180. Next, when the user presses, at time 401, the button 310 (c) to switch from the program A to another program, the system control section 170 reads out a video stream 420 corresponding to the time 400 from the recording medium 140. As a result, the program C is played back starting from a position where it started being recorded.);
executing a control affecting the streaming of the media content item (e.g., 0025] A system control section 170 has, for example, a CPU (Central Processing Unit). When a channel the user wishes to watch is specified from the input panel 160, the system control section 170 receives a control signal corresponding to the channel selected by the user and performs control to cause a corresponding video stream to be read out from the recording medium 140 and outputted to a decoder 150 via the bus 130. The decoder 150 receives and decodes the video stream, and outputs the decoded video signal to the display section 200 via a video output terminal 180. As a result, the user can watch playback of the video.) ; and
running the application (e.g., see FIG. 3, para [0029] Part (d) of FIG. 3 shows the way in which video streams are played back from the recording medium 140. When the power button 210 of the display section 200 is turned on at time 400, each channel starts being recorded. When, to select channel 1, for example, the button 310 (a) of the remote controller is pressed, the system control section 170 reads out a video stream 410, which corresponds to the time 400, of the program A from the recording medium 140. The video stream thus read out is outputted to the display section 200 via the decoder 150 and the video output terminal 180. Next, when the user presses, at time 401, the button 310 (c) to switch from the program A to another program, the system control section 170 reads out a video stream 420 corresponding to the time 400 from the recording medium 140. As a result, the program C is played back starting from a position where it started being recorded.).
However, Nakamura does not teach wherein the application is independent of the media content being streamed , comparing a resource requirement of the application to an available resource of the device; wherein the resource requirement is retrieved from a tune manifest of the application, determining whether the resource requirement is satisfied by the available resource; based at least in part on determining the resource requirement is satisfied by the available resource, saving the streaming a playback location of the media content item; and identifying that the application has exited; and based at least in part on identifying that the application has exited, restoring the device to a previous streaming state.
Yen teaches comparing a resource requirement of the application to an available resource of the device (e.g.,” sufficient storage space 508”, FIG. 5) ; determining whether the resource requirement is satisfied by the available resource; in response to determining the resource requirement is satisfied by the available resource of the device (e.g., see FIG. 5, para [0059] In the example of FIG. 5, the flowchart 500 continues to decision point 508 where it is determined whether sufficient storage space is available to store the content on the playback device. If there is sufficient storage (508-Y), then an E-ticket and the content is sent to the playback device. If, on the other hand, there is not sufficient storage (508-N), then an E-ticket is sent to the playback device, but content is sent to external storage. Then the flowchart 500 ends.); running the application (e.g. para [0043]… the playback device 208 have permission to execute the content .
[0044] In operation, the playback device 208 executes the content. When content is executed, runtime state may be generated. Runtime state is intended to be more than simply data used in, e.g., a conditional license, such as duration of play or number of times executed).
Thus, 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 of Nakamura by adopting the teachings of Yen to comparing a resource requirement of the application to an available resource of the device; determining whether the resource requirement is satisfied by the available resource to running the application in order to “recover the content and the runtime state associated with the content, .” (see Yen, para 46).
Klemets teaches wherein the resource requirement is retrieved from a tune manifest of an application (e.g., see FIG. 8A and 8 B, para [0094] the streaming media player checks whether the streaming media content identifier includes a content bit rate modifier (act 348).
[0095] If a content bit rate modifier is included then the streaming media player selects the set of streams that have the highest bit rates that do not exceed the value of the content bit rate modifier (act 352 of FIG. 8B). If a content bit rate modifier is not included then the streaming media player selects the set of streams based on the bandwidth between the client and server, also referred to as the link bandwidth (act 350 of FIG. 8B).
According to applicant’s specification in para [0027] …the available resources of consumer device 100 may restrict device 100 to receive streaming content from a website or other source at not greater than a particular bit rate.” and Para [0029] …tune manifest that identifies one or more resources of consumer device 100 that the application may use.”…“The tune manifest for that application would identify that the one or more resources of consumer device 100 that the application may use is one HD content stream and three pictare-in-picture windows concurrently”
Thus, “a content bit rate modifier” coupled with the “bit rates”, “the bandwidth between the client and server, also referred to as the link bandwidth” include a tune manifest , the “payer” represent the application . Therefore , “the player checks whether the streaming media content identifier includes a content bit rate modifier” in para 94 above include wherein the resource requirement is retrieved from a tune manifest), determining whether the resource requirement is satisfied by the available resource; based at least in part on determining the resource requirement is satisfied by the available resource ( e.g., para [0095] If a content bit rate modifier is included then the streaming media player selects the set of streams that have the highest bit rates that do not exceed the value of the content bit rate modifier (act 352 of FIG. 8B). If a content bit rate modifier is not included then the streaming media player selects the set of streams based on the bandwidth between the client and server, also referred to as the link bandwidth (act 350 of FIG. 8B
para [0096]… the streaming media player checks whether the link bandwidth is greater than 1.5 times the sum of the bit rates of the selected streams or less than 0.9 times the sum of the bit rates of the selected streams (act 356). Alternatively, values other than 1.5 and 0.9 may be used in act 356. If the link bandwidth is not greater than 1.5 times the sum of the bit rates of the selected streams or less than 0.9 times the sum of the bit rates of the selected streams, then the streaming media content is not cached at the client (act 342 of FIG. 8A). However, if the link bandwidth is greater than 1.5 times the sum of the bit rates of the selected streams or less than 0.9 times the sum of the bit rates of the selected streams, then the streaming media player checks whether the selected protocol supports client caching of streaming media content (act 358). In one exemplary implementation, HTTP 1.1 and RTSP using TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) data delivery support client caching of streaming media content.”).
saving the a playback location (e.g., para 74, wherein “the playback of streaming media content at a particular location”, “playback from that location “ in para 74. Thus, saving the streaming a playback location) of the media content item (e.g., para [0074] a user may pause the playback of streaming media content at a particular location, then resume playback from that location several minutes later--even though additional content was streamed to client device 102 while the playback was paused, playback still resumes from the location where the user paused the playback. By way of another example, a user may rewind the streaming media content while it is being streamed in order to watch a portion of the content again (or multiple additional times). If the user rewinds the content, for example, by three minutes, the user can watch those three minutes again and then playback continues (with no user-noticeable break in the playback) from the point in the content where the user entered the rewind command, even though additional content was streamed to client device 102 while the three previous minutes of content were being played back again.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Nakamura and Yen by adopting the teachings of Klemets in order to allow “streaming of streaming media content can continue even when the user has selected various shuttle control options (e.g., pause, stop, fast forward, seek, rewind, etc.) .” (see Klemets, para 10).
Gewickey teaches saving a playback location of the media content item in memory of the device, running the application (e.g., para 49, “receives locations of book marked points in the video playback from the bookmark manager 186“ for “a currently active view (i.e., whether a web view or a content view is currently active) and “the user to pick up the video exactly where the user left off when the user returns 346”, “ saving history and/or state information” , “a streaming video being displayed) that can be saved and restored when transiting between the media content”, “the media content history is saved” in para 111 and para 113. Thus, The “locations of book marked points” include the a playback location , the “content view “ include the running the application., therefore saving a playback location of the media content item in memory of the device, running the application) ; identifying that the application has exited; and based at least in part on identifying that the application has exited (e.g., para 114, “the media content is halted or paused and a content bookmark (which can include a title number, elapsed time, chapter number, angle number, sub-picture number, audio number and other state information or combination of information) is saved”) , restoring the device to a previous streaming state (e.g., para 114, The content bookmark is used to restore the content (e.g., content window 314 or full screen) upon returning from a transition”, “to resume playing the content at substantially the same point the playing of the content was previously halted.) .
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Nakamura , Yen and Klemets by adopting the teachings of Gewickey in order to prevent “third parties from gaining access to and knowledge about the content and what content or portion of content is actively being accessed and/or played.” (see Gewickey, para 32).
As to claim 22, Nakamura does not teach wherein, the identifying that the application has exited further comprises receiving an indication that the application is exited; and the restoring the device to the previous streaming state further comprises: retrieving the playback location of the media content from the memory of the device; and resuming playback of the media content. However, Klemet teaches further retrieving the playback location of the media content from the memory of the device; and resuming playback of the media content (e.g., para 74, “a user may pause the playback of streaming media content at a particular location, then resume playback from that location several minutes later”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Nakamura and Yen by adopting the teachings of Klemets in order to allow “streaming of streaming media content can continue even when the user has selected various shuttle control options (e.g., pause, stop, fast forward, seek, rewind, etc.) .” (see Klemets, para 10).
Gewickey teaches further the identifying that the application has exited further comprises receiving an indication that the application is exited; and the restoring the device to the previous streaming state ( see rejection of claim 21 above).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Nakamura , Yen and Klemets by adopting the teachings of Gewickey in order to prevent “third parties from gaining access to and knowledge about the content and what content or portion of content is actively being accessed and/or played.” (see Gewickey, para 32).
As to claim 23, Nakamura does not teach wherein the saving the playback location of the media content item further comprises pausing the streaming of the media content. However, Klemet teaches further wherein the saving the playback location of the media content item further comprises pausing the streaming of the media content (e.g., para 74, “pause the playback of streaming media content at a particular location, then resume playback from that location several minutes later”) .
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Nakamura and Yen by adopting the teachings of Klemets in order to allow “streaming of streaming media content can continue even when the user has selected various shuttle control options (e.g., pause, stop, fast forward, seek, rewind, etc.) .” (see Klemets, para 10).
As to claim 27, Nakamura teaches wherein the resource requirement is at least one of a hardware resource (e.g., para 6, “space on a local storage device” for “the amount of storage space needed for the content” and “it is determined whether sufficient storage space is available to store the content on the playback device” para 58-59), a bandwidth capacity of a network to which the device is coupled, a number of windows that are concurrently displayable, a number of concurrently streaming content sources, or a number of concurrently running applications.
As to claim 28, Nakamura and Yen do not teach wherein the resource requirement is a bandwidth capacity of a home network to which the device is coupled. However, Klemets teaches wherein the resource requirement is a bandwidth capacity of a home network to which the device is coupled (e.g., para 40 “Which combination of streams are to be included in the streaming media content can be selected in a variety of manners, such as user preferences (e.g., for higher or lower quality content), available network bandwidth, a desired bit rate for particular content (e.g., a bit rate set by the content author or distributor and included in the identifier of the streaming media content so that, when the identifier is selected by the user, streaming media player 142 selects streams (optionally based on user preferences) that are as close as possible to the desired bit rate).”) .
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Nakamura and Yen by adopting the teachings of Klemets to allow “streaming of streaming media content can continue even when the user has selected various shuttle control options (e.g., pause, stop, fast forward, seek, rewind, etc.) .” (see Klemets, para 10).
As to claim 29, Nakamura teaches communicating between the device and a content distributor streaming the media content (e.g., para [0061] The recording capacity for each channel may also be set at the time of starting recording based on watching history information which shows the frequency of being watched of each channel, for example, for the last one month period. It is preferable to accumulate the watching history information by, for example, day of the week or by time of day, and determine the recording capacity for each channel by time of day. Doing so makes it possible to appropriately distribute the recording capacity of the recording medium 140 to each channel even in a case where frequently watched channels vary with day of the week or with time of day.).
As to claim 31, see rejection of claim 21 above. Nakamura teaches further a system comprising: circuitry configured to (see FIG. 1).
As to claims 32-33, see rejection of claims 22-23 above
As to claims 37-39, see rejection of claims 27-29 above.
Claims 25-26 and 35-36 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2006/0177197, Nakamura hereinafter) in view of Yen et al. (US 2010/0017501, Yen hereinafter) , Klemets et al. (US 2006/0059223, Klemets hereinafter), and Gewickey et al. (US 2005/0041150, Gewickey hereinafter), as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of Bowra et al. (US 2007/0027983, Bowra hereinafter).
As to claim 25, Nakamura ,Yen , Klemets and Gewickey do not teach in response to determining a conflict between the resource application and the available resource, generating for display a notification of the conflict . However, Bowra teaches in response to determining a conflict between the resource application and the available resource, generating for display a notification (e.g., para 65, “the notifications and options may be presented to users in easy to follow `plain English` “ and [0091] Under interactive enforcement, the method 400 may notify one or more users that resource contention exists and then present them with options for remedying the situation. The users notified may include those whose user experience may be affected by changes to be brought on by enforcement of the desired policy, or alternately, all users or a subset thereof may receive notification.) of the conflict (e.g., para [0065] In the event that interactive enforcement is mandated, the enforcement module 316 may notify one or more users that resource contention exists and then present them with options for remedying the situation. Both the notifications and options may be presented to users in easy to follow `plain English` (i.e. language understandable by non technical users). For example, in the event that usage of the network 124 is too high, the enforcement module 316 might present the one or more users with one or more options. In one implementation the enforcement module 316 might present the one or more users with the option of listening to music instead of watching TV since delivery of audio content consumes less bandwidth than the delivery of audio and video content. Additionally, the enforcement module 316 could direct the one or more users to switch from an HD feed to an SD feed (for example, from an HDTV channel to a SDTV channel) in order to decrease the network usage and thus ameliorate the related network resource contention issue.
Thus, 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 of Nakamura by adopting the teachings of Yen to “ enable a PC to function in a multi-user environment and to deliver content to a multitude of requesting devices without exceeding the resources available on the PC.” (see Bowra, para 4)
As to claim 26, Nakamura, Yen and Klemets do not teach generating a query for display as part of the notification of the conflict , wherein the query identifies a nature of the conflict and how to resolve the conflict. However, Bowra teaches generating a query for display as part of the notification of the conflict (e.g., para 65, “ the notifications and options may be presented to users in easy to follow `plain English` (i.e. language understandable by non technical users) and [0091] Under interactive enforcement, the method 400 may notify one or more users that resource contention exists and then present them with options for remedying the situation. The users notified may include those whose user experience may be affected by changes to be brought on by enforcement of the desired policy, or alternately, all users or a subset thereof may receive notification.), wherein the query identifies a nature of the conflict and how to resolve the conflict (e.g., para [0065] In the event that interactive enforcement is mandated, the enforcement module 316 may notify one or more users that resource contention exists and then present them with options for remedying the situation. Both the notifications and options may be presented to users in easy to follow `plain English` (i.e. language understandable by non technical users). For example, in the event that usage of the network 124 is too high, the enforcement module 316 might present the one or more users with one or more options. In one implementation the enforcement module 316 might present the one or more users with the option of listening to music instead of watching TV since delivery of audio content consumes less bandwidth than the delivery of audio and video content. Additionally, the enforcement module 316 could direct the one or more users to switch from an HD feed to an SD feed (for example, from an HDTV channel to a SDTV channel) in order to decrease the network usage and thus ameliorate the related network resource contention issue.
Thus, 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 of Nakamura by adopting the teachings of Yen to “ enable a PC to function in a multi-user environment and to deliver content to a multitude of requesting devices without exceeding the resources available on the PC.” (see Bowra, para 4)
As to claims 35-36 see rejection of claims 25-26 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 is allowed if rewritten to overcome double patenting rejection and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 24, 34 and 40 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ABDOU K SEYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at 5712724215. 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.
/ABDOU K SEYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198