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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/29/2025, 11/11/2025, 1/6/2026, 2/10/2026, 4/8/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 7, filed 2/10/2026, with respect to the status of the claims and the interview summary is hereby acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 8-10, filed 2/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 6, 8-9, 10-11, and 14-15 on obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. The examiner notes that the applicant’s arguments are directed to the newly amend limitations not previously presented. Therefore, the examiner will set forth a new grounds of rejection with newly found prior art in order to take into consideration the newly amended limitations.
The applicant’s arguments are directed, in part, the teachings of the prior art and the applicant argues, inter alia, the following:
With respect to claim 1, the cited references fail to teach or suggest at least "receiving, by the switching device separately from the primary video stream and the secondary video stream, performance data from the first landing device and the second landing device, wherein the performance data includes at least one of uptime, processing speed, or bandwidth utilization," and "detecting, by the switching device based on the received performance data, an interruption or change of quality in the primary video stream," as recited in claim 1. In Cenzano, the Office Action cites to the "redundancy control unit (RCU)" as teaching the claimed switching device. The RCU in Cenzano, however, does not rely on or receive performance data being received from landing devices. Rather, in Cenzano, the RCU analyzes the stream to identify faults in the stream. (Cenzano, e.g., Abstract ("The redundancy control unit outputs a manifest from one of the transcoded streams and, upon detecting a fault in the stream, can modify the manifest to switch to another of the transcoded video streams.").) Cenzano operates specifically on the data that it continues to forward on, such as the media streams. In contrast, in the present technology the performance data is not further transmitted and the performance data is received separately.
First, in response to the applicant’s arguments, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). More importantly, on the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court stated that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 96 S. Ct. 1532, 47 L. Ed. 2d 784 (1976)). The Court further reiterated that in circumstances where the combination of two pre-existing elements did no more than they would in separate, sequential operation, the patent failed under 35 U.S.C. 103. See id. at 416-417 (citing Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 90 S. Ct. 305, 24 L. Ed. 2d 258 (1969)). The analysis of a rejection on obviousness grounds need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. See id. at 418. The obvious analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation. Id. at 419. Further, the Court stated that common sense teaches, however, that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. See id. at 420.
The rejection of claim 1 was based on a combination of references and the applicant’s arguments appear to only address the teachings of Cenzano and For example, Cenzano is cited for the significant teaching value that the RCU of Cenzano can detect faults in a stream (Abstract; para 5-8, 47, 52-53) and further teaches Cenzano is able to identify when current live streams become unavailable or unstable (para 24-26 stating “There are several mechanisms of switching that can be utilized, as depicted in FIGS. 2A-2C. (Again, it can be noted that although embodiments illustrated show switching capabilities between two inputs, alternative embodiments may be capable of switching between any number of two or more inputs.) FIG. 2A, for example, is a diagram illustrating an in-cloud “redundancy control unit,” or RCU 200. An RCU 200 comprise cloud instances running code that listens for input data coming on inputs 210 from two or more other cloud-based processing units (e.g., transcoders). In the event when one of those units becomes unresponsive, the RCU 200 can switch from an input 210 from the unresponsive unit to another input 210 that appears to be more healthy and providing an output 215 corresponding to the healthy input.” As such, the terms “performance data” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation and comprises data that identifies performance. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that where Cenzano is able to analyze input data and is able to determine responsiveness, heath of an input, and stability of a video stream, then the data analyzed in Cenzano comprises performance data, albeit not separately from the streams as claimed (i.e., receiving, by the switching device separately from the primary video stream and the secondary video stream).
More importantly, the applicant argues that Yengalasetti, at best, the appliance can detect if a particular server is not available or has a load over a predetermined threshold. See Remarks pg. 9 filed 2/10/2026. However, the applicant’s claimed limitation (i.e., receiving, by the switching device separately from the primary video stream and the secondary video stream, performance data from each of the first landing device and the second landing device) only requires that the performance data be received separately from the cited video stream and Yengalasetti teaches that the health monitoring monitor is utilized in conjunction with the corresponding switching device in order to determine when a switch to a different media distribution component should be utilized. Yengalasetti was cited as an analogous art wherein para 114 discloses the appliance 200 provides switching or load-balancing functionality 284 for communications between the client 102 and server 106; the health monitoring programs 216 of the appliance 200 monitor the health of servers to determine the server 106 for which to distribute a client's request. In some embodiments, if the appliance 200 detects a server 106 is not available or has a load over a predetermined threshold, the appliance 200 can direct or distribute client requests to another server 106. See also para 63 disclosing monitoring bandwidth utilization. Yengalasetti further teaches the deficiency of Cenzano (i.e., receiving, by the switching device separately from the primary video stream and the secondary video stream, performance data from each of the first landing device and the second landing device) See para 103, 114 disclosing health monitoring monitor the health of the servers.
All things considered, the examiner will set forth a new grounds of rejection in order to address the newly amended limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9, 10-11, 13-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cenzano Ferret; Jorge et al. US 20220094727 A1 (hereafter Cenzano) and further in view of Haritaoglu; Ismail R. et al. US 10750248 B1 (hereafter Haritaoglu) and in further view of Pereira; Michael US 20070101379 A1 (hereafter Pereira) and in further view of Yengalasetti; Sreedhar et al. US 20110161500 A1 (hereafter Yengalasetti).
Regarding claim 1, “a method for video streaming in a one-way transfer (OWT) system, the method comprising: receiving, by a transmitting device in a source environment, a video stream for receipt by a destination computing device in a destination computing environment; transmitting, by the transmitting device the received video stream forming a primary video stream and a secondary video stream by duplicating the video stream” Cenzano Fig. 3 and para 19-22 teaches a one way transfer of video source data from a video source 105 to a destination device at a cloud service provider for delivery to a user device 150 wherein the video source transmits two video streams for duplication at cloud service provider to first transcode the incoming video stream into one or multiple output formats using the cloud transcoder comprising two video streams at different formats wherein the primary format is interpreted as a higher definition stream format; Regarding “receiving, by a first landing device in the destination computing environment, the primary video stream; receiving, by a second landing device in the destination computing environment, the secondary video stream; receiving, by a switching device in the destination computing environment, the primary video stream from the first landing device and the secondary video stream from the second landing device; receiving, by the switching device separately from the primary video stream and the secondary video stream, performance data from each of the first landing device and the second landing device, wherein the performance data includes at least one of uptime, processing speed, or bandwidth utilization of at least one of the first landing device or the second landing device; transmitting, by the switching device, the primary video stream to the destination computing device without transmitting the secondary video stream or the performance data; detecting, by the switching device based on the received performance data, an interruption or change of quality in the primary video stream; and based on detecting the interruption or change of quality, transmitting, by the switching device, the secondary video stream to the destination computing device instead of the primary video stream” Cenzano Fig. 3-7 and para 24-27 and 34-36 teaches a redundancy control unit as part of a cloud service provider comprises wherein in the event when instances delivering current live streams become unavailable or unstable, the system can allow for switching between redundant instances to enable the continued delivery of the video stream to the user device. Different embodiments can include different architectures and different methods of handling of switches between such encoders and origin servers in a way that minimizes discontinuity and Quality of Experience (QoE) impact in case of such switches. Cenzano is cited for the significant teaching value that the RCU of Cenzano can detect faults in a stream (Abstract; para 5-8, 47, 52-53) and further teaches Cenzano is able to identify when current live streams become unavailable or unstable (para 24-26 stating “There are several mechanisms of switching that can be utilized, as depicted in FIGS. 2A-2C. (Again, it can be noted that although embodiments illustrated show switching capabilities between two inputs, alternative embodiments may be capable of switching between any number of two or more inputs.) FIG. 2A, for example, is a diagram illustrating an in-cloud “redundancy control unit,” or RCU 200. An RCU 200 comprise cloud instances running code that listens for input data coming on inputs 210 from two or more other cloud-based processing units (e.g., transcoders). In the event when one of those units becomes unresponsive, the RCU 200 can switch from an input 210 from the unresponsive unit to another input 210 that appears to be more healthy and providing an output 215 corresponding to the healthy input.” As such, the terms “performance data” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation and comprises data that identifies performance. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that where Cenzano is able to analyze input data and is able to determine responsiveness, heath of an input, and stability of a video stream, then the data analyzed in Cenzano comprises performance data, albeit not separately from the streams as claimed (i.e., receiving, by the switching device separately from the primary video stream and the secondary video stream). Furthermore, and more importantly, Cenzano Fig. 5-7 and para 39-48 discloses cloud service provider servers comprise a plurality of RCU’s and the destination environment also includes RCU’s in the device elements receiving the video streams (landing) before being transmitted to the destination device 240. Regarding the limitation “wherein the performance data includes at least one of uptime, processing speed, or bandwidth utilization of at least one of the first landing device or the second landing device” Cenzano [0026-0028] reads on processing speed and bandwidth utilization because Cenzano teaches distributing traffic load which corresponds to bandwidth utilization and identifying non-response or less responsive servers corresponds to processing speed wherein Cenzano teaches the following:
FIG. 2A, for example, is a diagram illustrating an in-cloud “redundancy control unit,” or RCU 200. An RCU 200 comprise cloud instances running code that listens for input data coming on inputs 210 from two or more other cloud-based processing units (e.g., transcoders). In the event when one of those units becomes unresponsive, the RCU 200 can switch from an input 210 from the unresponsive unit to another input 210 that appears to be more healthy and providing an output 215 corresponding to the healthy input.
[0029] FIG. 2B is a diagram illustrating a switchable CDN 220 comprising CDN-level switching logic. The switching logic enables the CDN to switch (or distribute traffic load) between inputs 230 received from two or more origin servers 135, in the event if one of the origin servers 135 becomes non- or less-responsive. Such functionality, if available, and can be programmed to implement rapid switches between inputs 230 in the event of failure from an origin server 135.
Wherein Cenzano does not reference the terms primary and secondary stream, in an analogous art, Haritaoglu teaches the deficiency of Cenzano wherein when there is an issue with the delivery of a primary stream to a failover/alternate stream (Haritaoglu col. 7:64-67 to col. 8:1-26). Haritaoglu does not use the terms uptime, processing speed, or bandwidth utilization.
In an analogous art, Pereira teaches seamless failover from primary to redundant streams using a switching device between remote servers, providing primary and redundant streams, and a remote client device (Fig. 2-3 and para 47 – discussing transmission delays which is interpreted as processing speed).
The motivation to modify Cenzano, Haritaoglu, and Pereira is further evidenced in Yengalasetti para 114 disclosing the appliance 200 provides switching or load-balancing functionality 284 for communications between the client 102 and server 106; the health monitoring programs 216 of the appliance 200 monitor the health of servers to determine the server 106 for which to distribute a client's request. In some embodiments, if the appliance 200 detects a server 106 is not available or has a load over a predetermined threshold, the appliance 200 can direct or distribute client requests to another server 106. See also para 63 disclosing monitoring bandwidth utilization. Yengalasetti further teaches the deficiency of Cenzano (i.e., receiving, by the switching device separately from the primary video stream and the secondary video stream, performance data from each of the first landing device and the second landing device) See para 103, 114 disclosing health monitoring monitor the health of the servers. The applicant’s claimed limitation (i.e., receiving, by the switching device separately from the primary video stream and the secondary video stream, performance data from each of the first landing device and the second landing device) only requires that the performance data be received separately from the cited video stream and Yengalasetti teaches that the health monitoring monitor is utilized in conjunction with the corresponding switching device (i.e., an appliance that provides switching and load-balancing functionality between clients and servers) in order to determine when a switch to a different media distribution component should be utilized. All things considered, Yengalasetti would enable the switching and load-balancing of media streams but does not require the transmission of performance data (i.e., transmitting, by the switching device, the primary video stream to the destination computing device without transmitting the secondary video stream or the performance data).
See prior art made of record but not relied upon in order to avoid duplicative references: Ryshakov; Igor US 20130051220 A1 both prior art references disclosing a switching device for simultaneously receiving a primary stream and a secondary stream (i.e., access concentrator and video stream reconstruction) as an intermediary device between landing devices and a destination device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cenzano’s invention for a one way transfer of video source data from a video source to a destination device at a cloud service provider for delivery to a user device wherein the video source transmits two video streams for duplication at cloud service provider to first transcode the incoming video stream into one or multiple output formats using the cloud transcoder comprising two video streams at different formats and determining processing speed and bandwidth utilization because Cenzano teaches distributing traffic load which corresponds to bandwidth utilization and identifying non-response or less responsive servers corresponds to processing speed by further incorporating known elements of Haritaoglu for implementing a failover and/or redundancy delivery of stream in order to address interruptions of service when there is an issue with the delivery of a primary stream to a failover/alternate stream and improve the quality of service of a viewing experience. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cenzano and Haritaoglu’s invention for a one way transfer of video source data from a video source to a destination device at a cloud service provider for delivery to a user device wherein the video source transmits two video streams for duplication at cloud service provider to first transcode the incoming video stream into one or multiple output formats using the cloud transcoder comprising two video streams at different formats by further incorporating known elements of Pereira for providing seamless failover from primary to redundant streams using a switching device between remote servers, providing primary and redundant streams, and a remote client device comprising analyzing remote server performance including transmission delays which is interpreted as processing speed and implementing a failover and/or redundancy delivery of streams in order to address interruptions of service when there is an issue with the delivery of a primary stream to a failover/alternate stream and because the prior art to Yengalasetti discloses a solution to providing failover streams comprising appliance 200 switching or load-balancing functionality for communications between the client 102 and servers wherein said application utilizes health monitoring programs to monitor the health of servers comprising monitoring bandwidth utilization in order to improve and avoid service disruptions.
Regarding claim 3, “wherein detecting the interruption in the primary video stream is based on continuity counter data for the video stream” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 wherein Cenzano para 43-44 disclosing a continuity counter utilized in the switching between different video stream formats when a failure is detected.
Regarding claim 4, “wherein the video stream is in a Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG)-Transport Stream (TS) format” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejections of claims 1, 3 wherein the prior art to Cenzano para 25-26, 36-37, 53 disclose video stream is MPEG TS format.
Regarding claim 6, “further comprising: while transmitting the secondary video stream, detecting an interruption in the second video stream; and based on detecting the interruption in the second video stream, transmitting, by the switching device, the primary video stream to the destination computing device instead of the secondary video stream” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 wherein Cenzano para 25 the redundancies can be introduced in forms of two or more contribution encoders 115, contribution feeds 120, cloud transcoders 125 (and corresponding ad-insertion servers, if any), origin servers 135, and/or multiple CDNs 145. However, such redundancies must also be coupled with means of detecting which of the redundant components is failing and the switch of the delivery to a healthy version. Whereas Cenzano does not use the term “landing device,” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that the delivery network comprises a device for detecting which of the plurality of streams is the healthy version and will automatically switch to the primary version when and if the alternate version as disclosed in Haritaoglu would happen to fail.
Regarding claim 8, “further comprising: processing, by a first guard, the primary video stream prior to the primary video stream being received by the switching device; and processing, by a second guard, the secondary video stream prior to the secondary video stream being received by the switching device” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 6 wherein Cenzano Fig. 1, 3, 5 and para and para 19-23 teaches a plurality of contribution encoders and transcoders for processing the video streams before being received by the switching device as part of the disclosed cloud environment.
Regarding claim 9, “wherein the transmitting device uses a transmit-only device, and the transmitting computing device does not receive data from the destination computing environment” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 6, 8 Cenzano Fig. 3 and para 19-22 teaches a one way transfer of video source data from a video source 105 to a destination device at a cloud service provider for delivery to a user device 150 wherein the video source transmits two video streams for duplication at cloud service provider to first transcode the incoming video stream into one or multiple output formats using the cloud transcoder comprising two video streams at different formats wherein the primary format is interpreted as a higher definition stream format.
Regarding the system of claims 10-11, 13-15 the claims are grouped and rejected with the method claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9 because the steps of the method claims are met by the disclosure of the apparatus and methods of the reference(s) as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9 and because the steps of the method are easily converted into elements of computer system by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 2, 12, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cenzano Ferret; Jorge et al. US 20220094727 A1 (hereafter Cenzano) and further in view of Haritaoglu; Ismail R. et al. US 10750248 B1 (hereafter Haritaoglu) and in further view of Pereira; Michael US 20070101379 A1 (hereafter Pereira) and in further view of Yengalasetti; Sreedhar et al. US 20110161500 A1 (hereafter Yengalasetti) and in further view of Samant; Niranjan R. et al. US 10182269 B1 (hereafter Samant).
Regarding claim 2, the prior art to Cenzano, Haritaoglu, Pereira, and Yengalasetti do not reference “wherein duplicating the video stream is achieved by splitting an optical signal representing the video stream.” In an analogous art, Samant teaches the deficiency of Cenzano, Haritaoglu, Pereira, and Yengalasetti (Samant col. 2:57-67 to col. 4:1-36 – duplicating video streams wherein the delivery network comprises splitters, switching devices, splitter devices and PON devices wherein PON is understood as a passive optical network comprising elements typical for optical signal splitting.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cenzano, Haritaoglu, Pereira, and Yengalasetti’s invention for a one way transfer of video source data from a video source to a destination device at a cloud service provider for delivery to a user device wherein the video source transmits two video streams for duplication at cloud service provider to first transcode the incoming video stream into one or multiple output formats using the cloud transcoder comprising two video streams at different formats by further incorporating known elements of Samant for implementing a failover and/or redundancy delivery of stream in order to address interruptions of service when there is an issue with the delivery of a primary stream to a failover/alternate stream and improve the quality of service of a viewing experience.
Regarding the system of claim 12, is grouped and rejected with the method claims 1-2, 6, 8-11 because the steps of the method claims are met by the disclosure of the apparatus and methods of the reference(s) as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-11 and because the steps of the method are easily converted into elements of computer system by one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner takes Official Notice that Optical splitters, also known as beam splitters, fiber splitters, or fiber optic splitters, are passive components that are essential to optical communication networks.
Regarding claim 17, “a system for video streaming in a one-way transfer (OWT) system, the system comprising: a transmitting computing device, located in a source computing environment, comprising an optical transmitter that transmits optical signals corresponding to a video stream transmitted by the transmitting computing device; a beam splitter that duplicates the video stream into a first duplicate video stream and a second duplicate video stream; a first landing device, located in a destination computing environment, that: receives the first duplicate video stream; generates first performance data about the first landing device; receives second performance data; and based on at least one of the first performance data or the second performance data, selectively drops or transmits the first duplicate video stream to a destination computing device of the destination computing environment; and a second landing device, located in the destination computing environment, that: receives the second duplicate video stream; generates the second performance data bout the second landing device; receives the first performance data; and based on at least one of the first performance data or the second performance data, selectively drops or transmits the second duplicate video stream to the destination computing device of the destination computing environment” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 because the limitations of claim 17 are a combination of the limitations recited in claims 1 and 2. Whereas claim 17 recites a beam splitter claim 2 recites splitting an optical signal, a person of ordinary skill in the art, based on the disclosure of Samant (Samant col. 2:57-67 to col. 4:1-36 – duplicating video streams wherein the delivery network comprises splitters, switching devices, splitter devices and PON devices wherein PON is understood as a passive optical network comprising elements typical for optical signal splitting typically comprise beam splitters. The Examiner takes Official Notice that Optical splitters, also known as beam splitters, fiber splitters, or fiber optic splitters, are passive components that are essential to optical communication networks.
Regarding claim 18, “wherein the first performance data and the second performance data includes continuity counter data,” the claim is grouped and rejected with the method claims 1-4, 6, 8-15 because the steps of the method claims are met by the disclosure of the apparatus and methods of the reference(s) as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8-15 and because the steps of the method are easily converted into elements of computer system by one of ordinary skill in the art. See Cenzano para 43-44 disclosing a continuity counter utilized in the switching between different video stream formats when a failure is detected.
Regarding claim 19, “wherein while the first landing device transmits the first duplicate video stream, the second landing device drops of the second duplicate video stream” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the combined rejection of claims 1, 2 because the limitations of claim 17 and 18 are a combination of the limitations recited in claims 1 and 2 and wherein Cenzano para 25 the redundancies can be introduced in forms of two or more contribution encoders 115, contribution feeds 120, cloud transcoders 125 (and corresponding ad-insertion servers, if any), origin servers 135, and/or multiple CDNs 145. However, such redundancies must also be coupled with means of detecting which of the redundant components is failing and the switch of the delivery to a healthy version. Whereas Cenzano does not use the term “landing device,” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that the delivery network comprises a plurality of landing devices for providing content to an end user device 150.
Regarding claim 20, “wherein while the second landing device transmits the second duplicate video stream, the first landing device drops the first duplicate video stream” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the combined rejection of claims 1, 2 because the limitations of claim 17, 19 are a combination of the limitations recited in claims 1 and 2 and wherein Cenzano para 25 the redundancies can be introduced in forms of two or more contribution encoders 115, contribution feeds 120, cloud transcoders 125 (and corresponding ad-insertion servers, if any), origin servers 135, and/or multiple CDNs 145. However, such redundancies must also be coupled with means of detecting which of the redundant components is failing and the switch of the delivery to a healthy version. Whereas Cenzano does not use the term “landing device,” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that the delivery network comprises a device for detecting which of the plurality of streams is the healthy version and will automatically switch to the primary version when and if the alternate version as disclosed in Haritaoglu would happen to fail and the unhealthy version will be dropped.
Regarding claim 21, “wherein the first performance data and the second performance data includes at least one of uptime, processing speed, or bandwidth utilization” is further rejected based on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 17.
Claim(s) 7, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cenzano Ferret; Jorge et al. US 20220094727 A1 (hereafter Cenzano) and further in view of Haritaoglu; Ismail R. et al. US 10750248 B1 (hereafter Haritaoglu) and in further view of Pereira; Michael US 20070101379 A1 (hereafter Pereira) and in further view of Yengalasetti; Sreedhar et al. US 20110161500 A1 (hereafter Yengalasetti) and in further view of Ryshakov; Igor US 20130051220 A1 (hereafter Ryshakov).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art to Cenzano, Haritaoglu, Pereira, and Yengalasetti do not reference “wherein switching from transmitting the primary video stream to transmitting the secondary video stream is performed in less than 100 milliseconds” the prior art to Ryshakov teaches a motivation to performing the switching available content to prevent servicer interruptions (Ryshakov para 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cenzano, Haritaoglu, Pereira, and Yengalasetti’s invention for identifying a failure in a network condition to switch between a plurality of available video streams comprising a one way transfer of video source data from a video source to a destination device at a cloud service provider for delivery to a user device wherein the video source transmits two video streams for duplication at cloud service provider to first transcode the incoming video stream into one or multiple output formats using the cloud transcoder comprising two video streams at different formats by further incorporating known elements of Ryshakov for implementing a failover and/or redundancy delivery of video stream to prevent a data loss during the period may be substantial and causes severe quality degradation by keeping the switching delay to as close to several milliseconds and less than several hundred milliseconds and improve switching latency.
Regarding the system of claim 16, is grouped and rejected with the method claims 1, 6-9 because the steps of the method claims are met by the disclosure of the apparatus and methods of the reference(s) as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 6-9 and because the steps of the method are easily converted into elements of computer system by one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 ALFONSO CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3950. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10am to 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALFONSO CASTRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights