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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-13, 15-17, and 19 are amended.
No claims are canceled.
No newly added claims.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the amendment filed on 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, the seasons are set forth below.
Applicant argues (Remarks page 6-7) that Iturralde fails to teach the “source period element” as recited by amended claim 1. Applicant further argues that Iturralde focuses on chunk-level manifest entries and chunk replacement, the presence of a duration attribute for a chunk in Iturralde does not transform a chunk into a “source period element” as recited by claim 1. Thus, for the at least reason, Applicant respectfully submits that Iturralde fails to disclose “receiving, by a computing device, a first manifest file for content, wherein the first manifest file comprises a source period element” as presently claimed.
In response, examiner respectfully points out that, Iturralde in par. 0015, discloses system is configured to employ one or more ABR technologies including Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH). Based on definition of DASH technologies standards includes Manifest data of streaming protocol has a hierarchical structure. The manifest data is organized in one or more section (e.g. periods) where each section includes information for a certain time interval of the stream. Therefore, Manifest of Iturralde uses the section or periods of stream to establish the sequence of streaming of content. Iturralde in par. 0020 discloses, each entry in the manifest references a respective chunk of media content by specifying a media URI (uniform resource identifier) and associated attributes that apply to it. Attributes can include information describing a duration, encryption method, timestamp, and the like for a presentation of each chunk of media content for the media asset. Therefore, Segment or chunk has time duration or period, in other words, segment or chuck is a “period element.”
Applicant’s specification par. 0029 discloses, a manifest file may include a Period element that describes a particular duration of the content item/segment (e.g., a duration of the content item bound by a start time and an end time). Hence, applicant’s specification discloses a period element = a segment. Par. 0032 of applicant’s specification discloses, segments may alternately be referred to as “chunks.” Therefore, applicant’s specification suggesting that a period element is chunk or segment or segment or period of the content, which is similar to Iturralde’s chunks with attributes that describes the duration of the content.
Applicant argues (Remarks page 6-7), Iturralde fails to disclose "generating[...] a new period element" as recited by amended claim 1. Iturralde's method for handling damaged chunks involves accessing another manifest file that includes a corresponding manifest entry referencing a redundant copy and replacing a manifest entry in the given manifest file with a copy of the corresponding manifest entry specified in the other manifest file. See id. at claim 17. However, this replacement operation in Iturralde copies an existing, redundant entry from another manifest file, which is not the same as "generating, based on the source period element, a new period element" as recited by amended claim 1.
In response, the examiner respectfully points out that, Iturralde in Par. 0026 discloses, that the given chunk of media content is missing or damaged in manifest file. In response to detecting that a given chunk of media content is missing or damaged, the reconciliation engine can access the storage to locate an entry in another manifest file that is associated with a redundant copy of the same chunk of media content, and select which entry in such other manifest to select to utilize for reconciling the given chunk of media content and copy the selected manifest entry. Therefore, manifest with damaged or missing entry (i.e. chunk with period) is receiving redundant or similar chunk from another manifest file, makes another manifest file as having “source chunk or period element”.
Further to that this feature of Iturralde as explained above, replacing the damaged chunk or period using source chunk or period from another manifest files is equivalent to, generating (i.e. replacing damaged chunk or period, hence it is new chunk or period not the same as what is damaged) based on the source period element, a new period element.” Applicant specification’ par. 0078 similarly discloses, the first computing device may generate the new period by appending, to a copy of the first manifest file, the duplication of the source period as the new period. Therefore, Iturralde’s generating (i.e. replacing damaged chunk or period, hence it is new chunk or period not the same as what is damaged) based on the source period element, a new period element.” is identical to steps of generation of new period element in applicant’s specification.
Applicant further argues (Remake’s page 7-8), Iturralde fails to disclose at least the "most similar period element" of claim 8, Iturralde's reconciliation engine identifies damaged entries and replaces them with redundant copies from another manifest file. But this process in Iturralde does not involve determining a "most similar period element" from among a plurality of period elements as recited by amended claim 8. Iturralde's method simply identifies damaged entries and locates corresponding redundant copies, which is fundamentally different from determining similarity among period elements. Furthermore, Iturralde's replacement operation copies an existing redundant entry from another manifest file, which is not the same as "generating, based on the most similar period element, a new period element for a manifest update for the content" as recited by amended claim 8 (emphasis added).
In response, the examiner respectfully points out that, as described above, Iturralde' teaches, “period element.” Iturralde in par. 0025 discloses, If the metadata indicates that an error might exist in a manifest entry 18, such as by specifying the manifest entry as a placeholder entry, the reconciliation engine 12 can retrieve a redundant copy of the manifest from the storage 14. The reconciliation engine 12 further can be programmed to compare (e.g., entries having the same sequence numbers) in the redundant manifests that have been retrieved, i.e. it is determined based on comparing similarity between corresponding entries of chunks or period element such as having same sequence number. Replacing the damaged chunk or period element using source chunk or period element from another manifest files is equivalent to, generating (i.e. replacing damaged chunk or period, hence it is new chunk or period not the same as what is damaged) based on the source period, a new period element.” Applicant specification’ par. 0078 similarly discloses, the first computing device may generate the new period by appending, to a copy of the first manifest file, the duplication of the source period as the new period. Therefore, Iturralde’s generating (i.e. replacing damaged chunk or period, hence it is new chunk or period not the same as what is damaged) based on the source period element, a new period element.” is identical to steps of generation of new period element in applicant’s specification.
Examiner’s Note:
The examiner cautions applicant to keep future amendments similar among claims to reduce need for a restriction amongst divergent claim groups.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iturralde et al. (US 20150261600).
Regarding claim 1, Iturralde discloses, a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, a first manifest file for content, wherein the first manifest file comprises a source period element (Par. 0017, manifest 16 can be stored as a respective manifest file in the storage 14 Each manifest 16 further can reference chunks of media content, i.e. plurality of chunks = plurality of period elements of media content. Fig. 2, par. 0036, packager including manifest generator storing manifest on storage 56, i.e. storage (i.e. a computing device) receives manifest files from packager. Par. 0026, the reconciliation engine 12 can access the storage 14 to locate an entry 18 in another manifest file 16 that is associated with a redundant copy of the same chunk of media content, the reconciliation engine 12 can copy the selected manifest entry 18 (i.e. entry of chunk or source period from a manifest file can be copied to another manifest file) based on the evaluation of corresponding metadata, i.e. make manifest update by copying manifest entry from another manifest file);
generating, based on the source period, a new period element (Par. 0026, the reconciliation engine 12 can access the storage 14 to locate an entry 18 in another manifest file 16 that is associated with a redundant copy of the same chunk of media content, the reconciliation engine 12 can copy the selected manifest entry 18 based on the evaluation of corresponding metadata, i.e. make manifest update (i.e. generating new chunk or period element) by copying manifest entry (i.e. source period) from another manifest file in to local manifest); and
generating, based on the new period element and the first manifest file, a manifest update for the content, wherein the manifest update facilitates access to the content (Par. 0026, the reconciliation engine 12 can access the storage 14 to locate an entry 18 in another manifest file 16 that is associated with a redundant copy of the same chunk of media content, the reconciliation engine 12 can copy the selected manifest entry 18 based on the evaluation of corresponding metadata, i.e. generating manifest update by copying entry (i.e. new period element or chunk) from another manifest. Par. 0050, the reconciliation engine 102 can further modify a manifest entry for a chunk of media content (e.g., via a manifest modification function) with a corresponding manifest entry generated by another pipeline, such as to enable a more reliable chunk of media content to be accessed during playout).
Regarding claim 2. The method of claim 1,
Iturralde further discloses, wherein the new period element comprises a duplication of the source period element (Par. 0026, the reconciliation engine 12 can access the storage 14 to locate an entry 18 in another manifest file 16 that is associated with a redundant copy of the same chunk of media content, the reconciliation engine 12 can copy the selected manifest entry 18 based on the evaluation of corresponding metadata, i.e. copying entry from another manifest = duplication of source period element), and wherein generating the new period element comprises at least one of:
appending, to a copy of the first manifest file, the duplication of the source period element as the new period element (Par. 0026, the reconciliation engine 12 can access the storage 14 to locate an entry 18 in another manifest file 16 that is associated with a redundant copy of the same chunk of media content, the reconciliation engine 12 can copy the selected manifest entry 18 based on the evaluation of corresponding metadata, copying entry from another manifest = appending to local or first manifest file, an entry as new period element which is duplicate of entry from another manifest);
generating, for the duplication of the source period, a placeholder attribute, wherein the new period comprises the placeholder attribute; or
generating, for the duplication of the source period, a unique identifier, wherein the new period comprises the unique identifier.
Regarding claim 6. The method of claim 1,
Iturralde further discloses, wherein the first manifest file comprises a plurality of period elements, and wherein the method further comprises:
determining, based on an additional period element within a second manifest file for the content, a most similar period element of the plurality of period elements (Par. 0026, the reconciliation engine 12 can access the storage 14 to locate an entry 18 in another manifest file 16 that is associated with a redundant copy of the same chunk of media content, the reconciliation engine 12 can copy the selected manifest entry 18 based on the evaluation of corresponding metadata, i.e. based on segments or chunks in source (i.e. here it is first manifest) manifest file, determine most similar period element between first manifest file and second or local manifest file).
Regarding claim 7. The method of claim 6,
Iturralde further discloses, wherein the source period comprises the most similar period element (Par. 0026, the reconciliation engine 12 can access the storage 14 to locate an entry 18 in another manifest file 16 that is associated with a redundant copy of the same chunk of media content, the reconciliation engine 12 can copy the selected manifest entry 18 based on the evaluation of corresponding metadata, i.e. compare to identify most similar entries between two manifest files so that it can be copied to current manifest from source manifest file).
Regarding claim 8, Iturralde discloses, a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, a first manifest file for content, wherein the first manifest file comprises a plurality of period elements (Par. 0017, manifest 16 can be stored as a respective manifest file in the storage 14 Each manifest 16 further can reference chunks of media content, i.e. plurality of chunks = plurality of period elements of media content. Fig. 2, par. 0036, packager including manifest generator storing manifest on storage 56, i.e. storage (i.e. a computing device) receives manifest files from packager);
determining, based on the plurality of period elements, a most similar period element of the plurality of period elements (Par. 0025, If the metadata indicates that an error might exist in a manifest entry 18, such as by specifying the manifest entry as a placeholder entry, the reconciliation engine 12 can retrieve a redundant copy of the manifest from the storage 14. The reconciliation engine 12 further can be programmed to compare corresponding entries (e.g., entries having the same sequence numbers) in the redundant manifests that have been retrieved, i.e. based on second manifest file, determine most similar period element between first manifest file and second manifest file);
generating, based on the most similar period element, a new period element for a manifest update for the content (Par. 0026, the reconciliation engine 12 can access the storage 14 to locate an entry 18 in another manifest file 16 that is associated with a redundant copy (i.e. most similar) of the same chunk of media content. The reconciliation engine 12 further can evaluate the metadata 20 associated with the entry in such other manifest 16 to select which entry 18 to utilize for reconciling the given chunk of media content. For example, the reconciliation engine 12 can copy the selected manifest entry 18 based on the evaluation of corresponding metadata, i.e. generate a new period in local manifest from another manifest which has most similar period element or chunk, which reflects manifest update for the content); and
generating, based on the new period element, the manifest update for the content, wherein the manifest update facilitates access to the content (Par. 0026, the reconciliation engine 12 can access the storage 14 to locate an entry 18 in another manifest file 16 that is associated with a redundant copy (i.e. most similar) of the same chunk of media content. The reconciliation engine 12 further can evaluate the metadata 20 associated with the entry in such other manifest 16 to select which entry 18 to utilize for reconciling the given chunk of media content. For example, the reconciliation engine 12 can copy the selected manifest entry 18 based on the evaluation of corresponding metadata, i.e. generate a new period in local manifest from another manifest which has most similar period or chunk, which reflects manifest update for the content).
Regarding claim 9, the method of claim 8,
Iturralde further discloses, wherein determining the most similar period element of the plurality of period elements comprises determining, based on the plurality of period elements, and based on an additional period within a second manifest file for the content, the most similar period element of the plurality of period elements (Par. 0026, the reconciliation engine 12 can access the storage 14 to locate an entry 18 in another manifest file 16 that is associated with a redundant copy of the same chunk of media content. The reconciliation engine 12 further can evaluate the metadata 20 associated with the entry in such other manifest 16 to select which entry 18 to utilize for reconciling the given chunk of media content. For example, the reconciliation engine 12 can copy the selected manifest entry 18 based on the evaluation of corresponding metadata, i.e. determine similar period element of first manifest file based on comparing period or chunks located within a second manifest file for the content).
Regarding claim 12, the method of claim 8,
Iturralde further discloses, wherein determining the most similar period element of the plurality of period elements comprises:
determining, based on an additional period element within a second manifest file for the content and the plurality of periods, a copy script cost for each period element of the plurality of period elements; and determining, based on the copy script cost for each period element of the plurality of period elements, a lowest copy script cost, wherein the most similar period element is associated with the lowest copy script cost (Par. 0034, The reconciliation engine 12 can perform reconciliation of redundant content via manifest manipulation, without requiring retrieval or parsing of corresponding chunks of media content, without requiring any changes to the chunks of ABR media content. As a result of such manifest manipulation to reference reliable chunks of media content, downstream entities (e.g. recorders, origin playout nodes, cache nodes, and end clients) can seamlessly retrieve the appropriate alternate content based on the reference to such chunk in the modified version of the first manifest. Accordingly, time and processing resources to perform such reconciliation can be less expensive as compared to performing content-based analysis, i.e. finding most similar period element in the second manifest file without actually copying any period but rather just copying reference to the period from another manifest from another entities, that is lowest copy script cost).
Regarding 13, The method of claim 12,
Iturralde further discloses, wherein the copy script cost for each period element of the plurality of period elements comprises a quantity of characters (Par. 0039, each entry 64 in the manifest 54 is associated with and references a corresponding chunk 60 in the ABR package 52. By way of example, the manifest 54 can be implemented as a text file, such as can be a well-formed XML document or other text document based on an ABR-format-specified schema (e.g., having a predefined structure and syntax). Each entry 64 can include a plurality of attributes that characterize features of the each respective chunk 60 to which it refers, such as can include tags to specify a URI, codec, bitrate, duration, time stamp and the like for each respective chunk, i.e. each entry in manifest file contains text that reference to content location, such as in form of URI, therefore each copy script cost for copying reference URI from second manifest to first manifest has text characters, each link contains specific quality of characters).
Regarding claim 14. The method of claim 12,
Iturralde does not disclose, wherein the lowest copy script cost comprises a smallest quantity of characters. However, official notice is taken that this was well known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. For example, it was widely practiced to determine that computer resources will be lowest used when copying smallest amount of characters. Therefore it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the system of Iturralde to include this functionality, the rationale being to estimate cost of copying that would impact the computer and network resources usage.
Regarding claim 15, Iturralde discloses, a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, a first manifest file for content, wherein the first manifest file comprises a plurality of period elements (Par. 0017, manifest 16 can be stored as a respective manifest file in the storage 14 Each manifest 16 further can reference chunks of media content, i.e. plurality of chunks = plurality of period elements of media content. Fig. 2, par. 0036, packager including manifest generator storing manifest on storage 56, i.e. storage (i.e. a computing device) receives manifest files from packager);
determining, based on the plurality of period elements, a most similar period of the plurality of period elements (Par. 0025, If the metadata indicates that an error might exist in a manifest entry 18, such as by specifying the manifest entry as a placeholder entry, the reconciliation engine 12 can retrieve a redundant copy of the manifest from the storage 14. The reconciliation engine 12 further can be programmed to compare corresponding entries (e.g., entries having the same sequence numbers) in the redundant manifests that have been retrieved, i.e. based on second manifest file, determine most similar period element between first manifest file and second manifest file);
determining, based on the most similar period element, a lowest computational cost for generation of a manifest update for the content (Par. 0026, the reconciliation engine 12 can access the storage 14 to locate an entry 18 in another manifest file 16 that is associated with a redundant copy of the same chunk of media content. The reconciliation engine 12 further can evaluate the metadata 20 associated with the entry in such other manifest 16 to select which entry 18 to utilize for reconciling the given chunk of media content. For example, the reconciliation engine 12 can copy the selected manifest entry 18 based on the evaluation of corresponding metadata, i.e. make manifest update by copying manifest entry from another manifest file. Par. 0034, result of such manifest manipulation to reference reliable chunks of media content, can seamlessly retrieve the appropriate alternate content based on the reference to such chunk in the modified version of the first manifest. Accordingly, time and processing resources to perform such reconciliation can be less expensive as compared to performing content-based analysis and repair); and
generating, based on the lowest computational cost and the first manifest file, the manifest update for the content (Par. 0026, the reconciliation engine 12 can access the storage 14 to locate an entry 18 in another manifest file 16 that is associated with a redundant copy of the same chunk of media content. The reconciliation engine 12 further can evaluate the metadata 20 associated with the entry in such other manifest 16 to select which entry 18 to utilize for reconciling the given chunk of media content. For example, the reconciliation engine 12 can copy the selected manifest entry 18 based on the evaluation of corresponding metadata, i.e. make manifest update by copying manifest entry from another manifest file. Par. 0034, result of such manifest manipulation to reference reliable chunks of media content, can seamlessly retrieve the appropriate alternate content based on the reference to such chunk in the modified version of the first manifest. Accordingly, time and processing resources to perform such reconciliation can be less expensive as compared to performing content-based analysis and repair).
Regarding claim 16, the method of claim 15,
Iturralde further discloses, wherein determining the most similar period element of the plurality of period elements comprises determining, based on the plurality of period elements, and based on an additional period element within a second manifest file for the content, the most similar period element of the plurality of period elements (Par. 0026, the reconciliation engine 12 can access the storage 14 to locate an entry 18 in another manifest file 16 that is associated with a redundant copy of the same chunk of media content. The reconciliation engine 12 further can evaluate the metadata 20 associated with the entry in such other manifest 16 to select which entry 18 to utilize for reconciling the given chunk of media content. For example, the reconciliation engine 12 can copy the selected manifest entry 18 based on the evaluation of corresponding metadata, i.e. determine similar period of first manifest file based on comparing period element or chunks located within a second manifest file for the content).
Regarding claim 17, the method of claim 15,
Iturralde further discloses, wherein determining the lowest computational cost comprises determining, based on the most similar period element and an additional period element within a second manifest file for the content, the lowest computational cost for generation of the manifest update for the content (Par. 0026, the reconciliation engine 12 can access the storage 14 to locate an entry 18 in another manifest file 16 that is associated with a redundant copy of the same chunk of media content. The reconciliation engine 12 further can evaluate the metadata 20 associated with the entry in such other manifest 16 to select which entry 18 to utilize for reconciling the given chunk of media content. For example, the reconciliation engine 12 can copy the selected manifest entry 18 based on the evaluation of corresponding metadata, i.e. make manifest update by copying manifest entry from another manifest file. Par. 0034, result of such manifest manipulation to reference reliable chunks of media content, can seamlessly retrieve the appropriate alternate content based on the reference to such chunk in the modified version of the first manifest. Accordingly, time and processing resources to perform such reconciliation can be less expensive as compared to performing content-based analysis and repair).
Regarding claim 18, the method of claim 15,
Iturralde further discloses, wherein generating the manifest update for the content comprises generating, based on the lowest computational cost and the first manifest file, and based on a second manifest file for the content, the manifest update for the content (Par. 0026, the reconciliation engine 12 can access the storage 14 to locate an entry 18 in another manifest file 16 that is associated with a redundant copy of the same chunk of media content. The reconciliation engine 12 further can evaluate the metadata 20 associated with the entry in such other manifest 16 to select which entry 18 to utilize for reconciling the given chunk of media content. For example, the reconciliation engine 12 can copy the selected manifest entry 18 based on the evaluation of corresponding metadata, i.e. make manifest update by copying manifest entry from another manifest file. Par. 0034, result of such manifest manipulation to reference reliable chunks of media content, can seamlessly retrieve the appropriate alternate content based on the reference to such chunk in the modified version of the first manifest. Accordingly, time and processing resources to perform such reconciliation can be less expensive as compared to performing content-based analysis and repair, i.e. generating manifest update in first manifest file based on using least expensive method and based on chunk entry in another manifest file).
Regarding claim 19, the method of claim 18,
Iturralde further discloses, wherein the second manifest file comprise an additional period element, and wherein the manifest update facilitates access to at least one segment of the content identified by the additional period element (Par. 0026, the reconciliation engine 12 can access the storage 14 to locate an entry 18 in another manifest file 16 that is associated with a redundant copy of the same chunk of media content. The reconciliation engine 12 further can evaluate the metadata 20 associated with the entry in such other manifest 16 to select which entry 18 to utilize for reconciling the given chunk of media content. For example, the reconciliation engine 12 can copy the selected manifest entry 18 based on the evaluation of corresponding metadata, i.e. updating first manifest gives access to chunk of the content identified from the second manifest file).
Regarding claim 20, the method of claim 19,
Iturralde further discloses, wherein the at least one segment comprises a newly encoded portion of the content or an advertisement associated with the content (Par. 0029, In some examples, the manifest modification function 24 can modify one or more manifest entry 18 to reference other content 28 that may be different from the originally intended chunk of media content. For example, the other content 28 can include an ad or other content that can be substituted for the originally intended chunk, such that the entry 18 in the manifest 16 can be modified to reference a selected substitute ad reference).
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 of this title, 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 3-5, and 10 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iturralde et al. (US 20150261600), in view of Johns (US 20180234714).
Regarding claim 3. The method of claim 1,
Iturralde does not disclose, further comprising: determining, based on an additional period within a second manifest file for the content, a replacement value for at least one attribute of the new period, wherein the manifest update comprises the new period element comprising the replacement value for the at least one attribute of the new period element.
Johns discloses, determining, based on an additional period element within a second manifest file for the content, a replacement value for at least one attribute of the new period, wherein the manifest update comprises the new period comprising the replacement value for the at least one attribute of the new period element (Par. 0067, the first manifest file 131 may include a field for an absolute address of a segment. Accordingly, combining the first and second manifest files 131, 139 may include generating an absolute address for a segment from information stored within the second manifest file 139 and inserting the absolute address into a corresponding entry of the first manifest file 131, i.e. based on additional period in second manifest file (i.e. here first manifest file is considered local manifest file or first manifest file) having an attribute of absolute address, segment copied from source manifest or first manifest file gets assigned with or replaced with absolute address for copied or new segment or period).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Iturralde, by teaching of determining based on an additional period element within a second manifest file for the content, a replacement value for at least one attribute of the new period element, wherein the manifest update comprises the new period element comprising the replacement value for the at least one attribute of the new period element, as taught by Johns, with the location information of the entry of the second manifest file such that the first discontinuity is resolved using the location information for retrieving the second content segment, as disclosed in Johns par. 0008.
Regarding claim 4, The method of claim 3,
Iturralde in view of Johns further discloses, wherein determining the replacement value for the at least one attribute of the new period element comprises:
receiving the second manifest file (Iturralde Fig. 2, par. 0036, packager including manifest generator storing manifest on storage 56, i.e. storage (i.e. a computing device) receives plurality of manifest files from packager), wherein the additional period of the second manifest file comprises at least one additional attribute (Johns Par. 0067, the first manifest file 131 may include a field for an absolute address of a segment, i.e. additional period element of received manifest file comprises an attribute of absolute address of a segment); and
determining, based on a value of the at least one attribute of the additional period, and based on a value of the at least one attribute of the new period element, the replacement value for the at least one attribute of the new period element (Johns Par. 0067, the first manifest file 131 may include a field for an absolute address of a segment. Accordingly, combining the first and second manifest files 131, 139 may include generating an absolute address for a segment from information stored within the second manifest file 139 and inserting the absolute address into a corresponding entry of the first manifest file 131, i.e. based on current value of period from second manifest (i.e. the new period element and value of the absolute address of existing periods of local manifest file determine to replacement or generated new absolute address for period copied from second manifest file).
Regarding claim 5, The method of claim 3,
Iturralde in view of Johns further discloses, wherein the replacement value comprises a difference between a value of at least one attribute of the additional period and the value of the at least one attribute of the new period element (Johns Par. 0067, the first manifest file 131 may include a field for an absolute address of a segment. Accordingly, combining the first and second manifest files 131, 139 may include generating an absolute address for a segment from information stored within the second manifest file 139 and inserting the absolute address into a corresponding entry of the first manifest file 131, i.e. value of generating and inserting absolute address = difference between having absolute address of existing other period element of local manifest value of absolute address of period element from second manifest).
Regarding claim 10, Iturralde in view of Johns limitation as set forth in claim 3,
Claim 11 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iturralde et al. (US 20150261600), in view of Marciano et al. (US 20230328308).
Regarding claim 11. The method of claim 8,
Iturralde does not disclose, wherein determining the most similar period element of the plurality of period elements comprises: determining, based on at least one difference algorithm, an amount of difference between attributes of an additional period within a second manifest file for the content and attributes of each period of the plurality of period elements; and
determining, based on the amount of difference between the attributes of the additional period and attributes of a first period element of the plurality of period elements, the most similar period element, wherein the most similar period element comprises the first period element.
Marciano discloses, wherein determining the most similar period element of the plurality of period elements comprises:
determining, based on at least one difference algorithm, an amount of difference between attributes of an additional period within a second manifest file for the content and attributes of each period of the plurality of period elements (Par. 0292, the algorithm determines that for a set of successive segments, first segment time stamp in manifest 1 and second segment time stamp in manifest 2 , where there is correspondence over a sufficiently (configured) large number of segments there is a match, there is a comparatively high probability that the corresponding segments in the two manifests are for identical points in time of the content, i.e. amount of different between time stamp (i.e. attributes) of two segments from two manifest is exactly matching (i.e. no different between attributes); and
determining, based on the amount of difference between the attributes of the additional period and attributes of a first period element of the plurality of period elements, the most similar period element, wherein the most similar period element comprises the first period element (Par. 0292, the algorithm determines that for a set of successive segments, first segment time stamp in manifest 1 and second segment time stamp in manifest 2 , where there is correspondence over a sufficiently (configured) large number of segments there is a match, there is a comparatively high probability that the corresponding segments in the two manifests are for identical points in time of the content, i.e. amount of different between time stamp (i.e. attributes) of two segments from two manifest is exactly matching (i.e. no different between attributes, segments are identical or of same event such as kicking of the goal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Iturralde, by teaching of determining, based on the amount of difference between the attributes of the additional period element and attributes of a first period element of the plurality of period elements, the most similar period element, wherein the most similar period comprises the first period element, as taught by Marciano, to algorithmically identify similarity between two segments accurately, as disclosed in Marciano par. 0004-0007.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKSHAY DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, JOHN W MILLER can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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.
/A.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422