Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Office Action is in response to claims filed on 10/14/2025 where claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s arguments in their entirety (Pages 10-15).
The Applicant states (see Page 11):
PNG
media_image1.png
405
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are directed to the technological environment and implementation details of Kwon, rather than to any express limitation of the claims. Such arguments are not commensurate with the metes and bounds of the recited limitations. In addition, applicant’s reliance on disclosure in the specification regarding caching strategies, content location, and architectural advantages is unavailing, as such features are not recited in the claims and therefore bear no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111; in re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, as discussed during the applicant interview, applicant’s discussion of advantages and disadvantages of caching placement and content location relates to unclaimed design choices, and the location of network elements and content is likewise not disclosed or required by the express metes and bounds of the independent claim(s). Accordingly, these arguments cannot overcome the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding redirection latency and content location in Kwon are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
The independent claims does not recite:
That the manager device provides the stream,
That the manager device stores the media stream,
That the media stream is obtained without redirection, or
any prohibition on redirection, rendezvous services, gateways, or intermedia nodes.
The limitations recite only:
forming a request,
modifying the request to address a manager device,
transmitting the request via HTTP, and
receiving a UDP stream response.
None of the limitations define the location of the media stream, the source of the medial stream, or whether redirection occurs.
Applicant’s arguments concerning:
“redirecting to a multicast gateway,”
“content hosting function”, and
“added latency and reduced performance,” are extraneous features and not recited in the claims.
Legality Framework:
Patentability must be determined based on the claims as written, not on unrecited implementation details. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA, 1982)
Limitations from the specification cannot be imported into the claims to distinguish the prior art. In re Van Geuns, 998 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993); MPEP 2111.
Arguments based on advantages or performance (e.g. latency) are irrelevant where such features are not claimed. In re Hiniker, 150 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Because the claims do not include redirection and do not require the manager device to host the media, Kwon’s use of a rendezvous service and redirection falls squarely within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited limitations.
Applicant’s arguments are not directed to any express claim limitation and instead rely on unclaimed content location and performance features. Accordingly, applicant has not shown error in the rejection, and the arguments regarding Kwon are moot under the metes and bounds of the claims (MPEP 2171)
In conclusion, the Examiner is not persuaded. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation and the metes and bounds of the claims (MPEP 2171), the recited limitations merely represent the passing of a request and/or provisioning of access to content, and do not recite in any way, form, or manner any steps, structure, architecture, or technology regarding the location of the content and/or the location of the network elements which facilitate the claimed operations.
For purposes of the present rejection and any subsequent appeal, the Examiner notes that the phrase “a request to a manager device for the media stream,” as recited in the independent claim(s), is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as defining solely the act and object of the request, and does not imply, recite, or require any structure, storage, source, or location of the media stream, nor any location of the network elements. The claims contain no express limitation requiring that the manager device store, host, or provide the media stream, and not limitation defining the physical or logical location of the content. Accordingly, arguments premised on content location, caching placement, or architectural source are not commensurate with the express metes and bounds of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 3, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US 2023/02759) in view of Stevens (US 2011/0274109)
Regarding claim 1, Kwon discloses a client device to modify requests for media, the client device comprising:
programmable circuitry (Kwon; see e.g. [0426]) “
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed or instantiated by the programmable circuitry, facilitate performance of operations, comprising (Kwon;
see e.g. [0426]):
forming a data structure representing a request to a content provider for a media stream
see e.g. [0047] “Original (Ori)L A host name (FQDN) of an original target host ...”
The examiner notes the URL is equivalent to a data structure and where the FQDN references a content provider which facilitates delivering a media stream; The Application generated and held a request which include a host-targeted data structure URL;
See e.g. Fig. 26 [0040]:
PNG
media_image2.png
220
1376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See e.g. [0264] “An application controls the content playback function. For example the application may be a built in control application (EPG application) of a TV or an STB ... The application may interact with the service management subfunction of the multicast gateway ... “
);
modifying the data structure to represent a request to a manager device for the media stream, wherein the modified request data structure includes an address corresponding to the manager device, wherein the programmable circuitry and the manager device are implemented within a same environment (Kwon;
see e.g. [0347] “Original (Ori): A host name (FQDN) of an original target host. The application may substitute the original target host name (FQDN) with a local multicast rendezvous service host name or address ...”
see e.g. Fig. 33 [0045] comprising table consisting of URL element, Use, Data type, and Description;
PNG
media_image3.png
135
1327
media_image3.png
Greyscale
transmitting the request to the manager device as a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) request, the request based on the modified data structure (Kwon;
PNG
media_image3.png
135
1327
media_image3.png
Greyscale
);
See e.g. [0259] “... the multicast rendezvous service determines whether there is a proper active multicast gateway ...” see e.g. [0258]
See e.g. [0319], [0320], [0321])and
receiving a response to the request from the manager device as a user datagram protocol (UDP) stream, the response including a portion of the media stream (Kwon; As the scope of includes multicast delivery via multicast gateways, and [00285 confirms UDP is a supported transport, the response when received is delivered using a UDP protocol;
see e.g. [0285] “... UDP ...”
See e.g. [0319], [0320], [0321], [0297]).
As evidence of the above rationale Stevens discloses:
receiving a response from the manager device as a user datagram protocol (UDP) stream (Stevens; Stevens teaches
see e.g. [0002] “... The most common low-level protocol to use multicast addressing is User Datagram Protocol UDP ...”)
see e.g. [0005] “In the event when multicast is further distributed in a home network, such above mentioned multicast proxy module usually controls a multicast stream via a home gateway towards different devices in a home network”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Stevens’ multicast UDP streaming. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in optimal networking performance.
Regarding claim 2, Kwon in view of Stevens disclose The system client device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise providing, based on the response, video data to a playback device (Kwon; see e.g. Fig. 5 [0020], Fig. 6 [0021] illustrating content playback device).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Stevens’ multicast UDP streaming. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in optimal networking performance.
Regarding claim 3, Kwon in view of Stevens discloses The system client device of claim 2, wherein the video data includes the portion of the media stream, and the portion of the m edia stream is generated by the content provider (Kwon; see e.g. Fig. 6( [0021], [0094], Fig. 11, Fig. 12)illustrating a portion of the media stream being generated).
Regarding claim 5, Kwon in view of Stevens disclose the system client device of claim 1, wherein:
the media stream is a first media stream (The combined solution per Kwon provides for any number of media streams (i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.); see e.g. Fig. 2);
the content provider is a first content provider (The combined solution per Kwon provides for any number of content providers (i.e., a 1st content provider, a 2nd content provider); see e.g., Fig. 2);
the request data structure is a first request data structure (The combined solution per Kwon may provide for an initial request or first request data structure);
the operations further comprise:
forming a second request data structure for a second media stream, the second request data structure directed to a second content provider (The combined solution per Kwon provides for continuous use of the methodology resulting in forming multiple request data structures associated with multiple providers (i.e., second content provider); and
modifying the second request data structure using the address, the modified second request data structure directed to the manager device provider (The combined solution per Kwon provides for continuous use of the methodology resulting in modifying several requests (e.g. second request data structure).
The examiner notes multiple elements are supported by MPEP 2144.04 VI:B: Duplication of Parts in tandem with MPEP 2144.04 V:E Making Continuous
Regarding claim 6, Kwon in view of Stevens discloses the system client device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
transmitting, using the address, an application programming interface (API) call to the manager device (The combined solution per Kwon provides for making a service discovery API call;
see e.g. Fig. 9, Fig. 12, Fig. 24;
see e.g. [0154]); and
receiving, in response to transmitting the API call, a description of the media stream accessible by the manager device (The combined solution per Kwon provides for receiving a medial description subsequent to the service discovery API call;
see e.g. Fig. 9, Fig. 12, Fig. 24;
see e.g. [0122] – [0124];
see e.g. [0154]).
Regarding claim 7, Kwon in view of Stephens discloses the system client device of claim 1, wherein the programmable circuitry includes one or more of:
at least one of a central processor unit, a graphics processor unit, or a digital signal processor, the at least one of the central processor unit, the graphics processor unit, or the digital signal processor having control circuitry to control data movement within the programmable circuitry, arithmetic and logic circuitry to perform one or more first operations corresponding to machine-readable data, and one or more registers to store a result of the one or more first operations, the machine-readable data in the memory (The combined solution per Kwon provides for a conventional processing unit (i.e. central processor unit)
see e.g. [0426] “... one or more processors capable of executing the one or more programs. The one or more programs may perform any one or more of the operations/methods according to embodiments or include instructions for performing the same, Executable instructions for performing the methods/operations ... stored in a non-transitory CRM .. a memory ... RAM ... non volatile memories, flash memories ...”
The examiner notes in order to perform the operations above arithmetic and logic circuitry as wells are registers are inherently present);
a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), the FPGA including logic gate circuitry, a plurality of configurable interconnections, and storage circuitry, the logic gate circuitry and the plurality of the configurable interconnections to perform one or more second operations, the storage circuitry to store a result of the one or more second operations; or
Application Specific Integrated Circuitry (ASIC) including logic gate circuitry to perform one or more third operations.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim1 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 2 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 10 claim 10 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 3 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 5 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 6 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim1 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 2 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 3 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18 claim 18 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 5 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 6 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 7 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Stevens and in further view of Pezeshki (US 2023/0034793)
Regarding claim 4, Kwon In view of Stevens disclose the system client device of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving the response as a UDP stream (The combined solution per Independent claim 1);
Kwon in view of Stevens does not expressly disclose:
decapsulating the UDP stream into a HTTP stream; and
providing the video data to the playback device as part of the HTTP stream.
However in analogous art Pezeshki discloses:
decapsulating the UDP stream into a HTTP stream (Pezeshki;
see e.g. [0025] “Further, each of the media processors, 214a, 216a, 218a decapsulates, or otherwise converts the multicast stream to a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) stream prior to presenting the media content on the respective display 214b, 216b, 218b”
see e.g. [0023] “... A media processor can include, but not limited to, a set-top box, media processing dongle, mobile phone, smartphone, mobile device, tablet computer, or any other media processor. In some embodiments, the premises 210 can be a hotel 208 and each of group of media processors 214a, 216a, 218a can be associated with a hotel room 214, 216, 218. In other embodiments, the premises 210 can be a residence and each of the group of media processors can be a room within the residence, or the premises 210 can be an office and each of the group of media processors can be a room within office ...”); and
providing the video data to the playback device as part of the HTTP stream (Pezeshki;
see e.g. [0025} see e.g. [0025] “Further, each of the media processors, 214a, 216a, 218a decapsulates, or otherwise converts the multicast stream to a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) stream prior to presenting the media content on the respective display 214b, 216b, 218b”
see e.g. [0023] “... A media processor can include, but not limited to, a set-top box, media processing dongle, mobile phone, smartphone, mobile device, tablet computer, or any other media processor. In some embodiments, the premises 210 can be a hotel 208 and each of group of media processors 214a, 216a, 218a can be associated with a hotel room 214, 216, 218. In other embodiments, the premises 210 can be a residence and each of the group of media processors can be a room within the residence, or the premises 210 can be an office and each of the group of media processors can be a room within office ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the decapsulation scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for the implementation of a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of delivering streaming services to client devices.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Stevens’ multicast UDP streaming. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in optimal networking performance.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 4 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 4 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
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.
/TODD L BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights