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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 21-36 and 48-58 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-41 of U.S. Patent No. 11800171. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and thus is anticipated by the patent. For example, note the following relationship between the instant application claim 21 and patented claims 14 and 15 (examiner note: similarities to the patented claims have been underlined.).
Instant 18381483
Patent 11800171
Claim 21: A computerized method for recording a live digitally rendered media stream, the computerized method comprising: receiving, at a computerized client device in data communication with a managed network, at least one network data structure associated with the live digitally rendered media stream, the at least one network data structure (i) comprising a plurality of uniform resource locators (URLs), the plurality of URLs indicative of a plurality of respective first network locations of the managed network where a plurality of respective digitally rendered media segments may be accessed,
and (ii) establishing a device-based security boundary around at least the computerized client device, the device-based security boundary enabling an operator of the managed network to maintain one or more content protection mechanisms over the plurality of respective digitally rendered media segments outside of the managed network;
based at least on the at least one network data structure, accessing at least two of the plurality of digitally rendered media segments from respective ones of the plurality of first network locations;
storing the accessed at least two of the plurality of digitally rendered media segments in one or more second locations accessible to the computerized client device; producing a local data structure with data relating to the one or more second locations, the local data structure comprising a version of the at least one network data structure modified based on one or more parameters associated with a non-managed internetwork,
the version of the at least one network data structure configured to maintain the device-based security boundary;
and utilizing the local data structure to access, without data communication to the managed network and according to the one or more parameters, the at least two of the plurality of digitally rendered media segments stored in the one or more second locations.
Claim 14: A computerized method for recording a live digitally rendered media stream, the computerized method comprising: receiving, at a computerized client device in data communication with a managed network, at least one network data structure associated with the live digitally rendered media stream, the at least one network data structure comprising a plurality of uniform resource locators (URLs), the plurality of URLs indicative of a plurality of respective first network locations of the managed network where a plurality of respective digitally rendered media segments may be accessed,
Claim 15: The computerized method of claim 14, wherein: the at least one network data structure establishes a device-based security boundary around at least the computerized client device, the device-based security boundary enabling the operator of the managed network to maintain one or more content protection mechanisms over the plurality of respective digitally rendered media segments outside of the managed network;
Claim 14 continued: based at least on the at least one network data structure, accessing at least two of the plurality of digitally rendered media segments from respective ones of the plurality of first network locations, the accessing of the at least two of the plurality of digitally rendered media segments comprising accessing of the at least two of the plurality of digitally rendered media segments consistent with one or more network content delivery quality of service (QoS) guarantees configured by an operator of the managed network;
storing the accessed at least two of the plurality of digitally rendered media segments in one or more second locations accessible to the computerized client device; producing a local data structure with data relating to the one or more second locations, the local data structure comprising a version of the at least one network data structure modified based on one or more parameters associated with a non-managed internetwork;
Claim 15 continued: the version of the at least one network data structure modified based on the one or more parameters associated with the non-managed internetwork is configured to maintain the device-based security boundary; and the access, without the data communication to the managed network, of the at least two of the plurality of digitally rendered media segments comprises access of the at least two of the plurality of digitally rendered media segments while the one or more content protection mechanisms are maintained.
Claim 14 continued: and utilizing the local data structure to access, without data communication to the managed network and according to the one or more parameters, the at least two of the plurality of digitally rendered media segments stored in the one or more second locations, the access of the at least two of the plurality of digitally rendered media segments according to the one or more parameters comprising accessing the at least two of the plurality of digitally rendered media segments to render the live digitally rendered media stream without the one or more network content delivery QoS guarantees.
Claim 22 is similar to
Claim 17
Claim 23 is similar to
Claim 18
Claim 24 is similar to
Claim 19
Claim 25 is similar to
Claim 20
Claim 26 is similar to
Claim 26
Claim 27 is similar to
Claim 12
Claim 28 is similar to
Claim 27
Claim 29 is similar to
Claim 28
Claim 30 is similar to
Claim 21
Claim 31 is similar to
Claim 22
Claim 32 is similar to
Claim 23
Claim 33 is similar to
Claim 14
Claim 34 is similar to
Claim 24
Claim 35 is similar to
Claim 25
Claim 36 is similar to
Claim 15
Claim 48-49 are similar to
Claims 14-15
Using a similar analysis as above claims 48-58, of the instant application can be found to recite similar subject matter to claims 1-41 of patent 11800171. Thus, claims 21-36 and 48-58 of the instant application are respectively anticipated by claims 1-41 of patent 11800171.
Therefore, instant application 18381483 and Patent 11800171 are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar subject matter which is obvious over one another.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(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.
Claim(s) 48, 52, 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Berger et al. (US 20150095460, hereinafter Berger.)
Regarding claim 48, “A computerized client device configured for local playback of a live media stream, comprising: processor apparatus; and storage apparatus in data communication with the processor apparatus, the storage apparatus comprising at least one computer program configured to, when executed on the processor apparatus, cause the computerized client device to” Berger teaches (Fig. 3 and ¶0105) a device that uses a local manifest for play out from local store; (¶0030) device is computer implemented (e.g., computer, laptop, notebook, tablet. i.e., digital device with processor, memory, and software).
As to “receive, from a service provider, a network stream manifest comprising identifiers which identify respective network locations of media segments of the live media stream; utilize the network stream manifest to download a subset of the media segments” Berger teaches (¶0094 and ¶0099) that the app that plays out the video, on an device, fetches and reads a manifest (i.e., network data structure) from a server; (see Fig.4) that original manifest includes URL of fragments on the CDN; (¶0100) using the manifest URLs (i.e., metadata elements) to obtain the fragments; (¶0022, ¶0003, and Fig. 2) fragment are downloaded from a server that is part of a CDN; (¶0103) URL is a pointer to the network address of the fragment on the CDN.
As to “store the subset of media segments in local memory of the computerized client device; generate a local stream manifest referencing the stored subset of media segments” Berger teaches (¶0102) generating a new manifest file that points to the downloaded fragments in their locations on the device (i.e., one or more parameters); (¶0105) local/updated manifest is used to stream/play out the video; (¶0017) manifest file points to location of each of the fragments either locally, if the fragment has been stored locally or remotely if the fragment is not stored locally; (¶0070 and claim 63) content is associated with a network DVR; Berger teaches (¶0105) local/updated manifest is used to stream/play out the video.
As to “and utilize at least a portion of the local stream manifest to render the media stream for playback on the computerized client device without reconnecting to a network.” Berger teaches (¶0105) local/updated manifest is used to stream/play out the video; (¶0095 and ¶0048) once video is recorded the user can watch video without network connection.
Regarding claim 52, “The computerized client device of claim 48, further comprising a software-based graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI configured to enable a user of the computerized client device to select media content based on at least one of (i) a subscriber- generated content descriptor, or (ii) a default content descriptor; wherein the at least one of the subscriber-generated content descriptor or the default content descriptor is descriptive of the local stream manifest.” Berger teaches (Fig. 11 and ¶0074) GUI with downloaded content name (e.g., Shrek.)
Regarding claim 55, “Computer readable apparatus comprising a non-transitory storage medium, the non-transitory storage medium comprising at least one computer program having a plurality of instructions, the plurality of instructions configured to, when executed on a processing apparatus, cause a computerized client device to” Berger teaches (Fig. 3 and ¶0105) a device that uses a local manifest for play out from local store; (¶0030) device is computer implemented (e.g., computer, laptop, notebook, tablet. i.e., digital device with processor, memory, and software).
As to “obtain, at the computerized client device, first data, at least a portion of the first data relating to a network stream manifest, the network stream manifest indicative of a plurality of respective digitally rendered content elements may be retrieved; based at least in part on the network stream manifest, retrieve and store at least two of the plurality of digitally rendered content elements” Berger teaches (¶0094 and ¶0099) that the app that plays out the video, on an device, fetches and reads a manifest (i.e., network data structure) from a server; (see Fig.4) that original manifest includes URL of fragments on the CDN; (¶0100) using the manifest URLs (i.e., metadata elements) to obtain the fragments; (¶0022, ¶0003, and Fig. 2) fragment are downloaded from a server that is part of a CDN; (¶0103) URL is a pointer to the network address of the fragment on the CDN.
As to “cause at least one of (i) a generation, or (ii) an update of an internal stream manifest to identify the stored at least two of the plurality of digitally rendered content elements, the internal stream manifest disposed within the computerized client device” Berger teaches (¶0102) generating a new manifest file that points to the downloaded fragments in their locations on the device (i.e., one or more parameters); (¶0105) local/updated manifest is used to stream/play out the video; (¶0017) manifest file points to location of each of the fragments either locally, if the fragment has been stored locally or remotely if the fragment is not stored locally; (¶0070 and claim 63) content is associated with a network DVR; Berger teaches (¶0105) local/updated manifest is used to stream/play out the video.
As to “and utilize the internal stream manifest to render the stored at least two of the plurality of digitally rendered content elements, without further network communication.” Berger teaches (¶0105) local/updated manifest is used to stream/play out the video; (¶0095 and ¶0048) once video is recorded the user can watch video without network connection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 50, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger in view of Kang et al. (US 20120090036, hereinafter Kang.)
Regarding claim 50, Berger does not teach “The computerized client device of claim 48, wherein: the local stream manifest comprises device-specific entitlement restrictions; the at least one computer program is further configured to, when executed on the processor apparatus, cause the computerized client device to: determine, without contacting the service provider, whether the local playback is authorized based on the device-specific entitlement restrictions in the local stream manifest; and the utilization of the at least portion of the local stream manifest to render the media stream for the playback is based on the determination indicating that the local playback is authorized.” However, Kang teaches (Fig. 10 and ¶0096) the user terminal 100 receives MPD information provided by adaptive streaming service through the transceiver 190 in step 502. The MPD information includes group information of representations corresponding to the content and content protection information corresponding to the representation group information; (¶0097-¶0098) determining the DRM system required for each representation group; (¶0099) After determining the required DRM system, the user terminal 100 determines in step 508 whether the required DRM system is a DRM system provided (supported) in the user terminal 100. If the required DRM system is a provided DRM system, the user terminal 100 selects an optimal DRM system among the provided DRM systems in step 510. However, if the required DRM system is not a provided DRM system, the user terminal 100 downloads a DRM system from the DRM server based on downloadableDRMInfo in the content protection information, installs the downloaded DRM system, and selects the optimal DRM system, in step 512. The user terminal 100 may select the optimal DRM system taking into account the current terminal performance, the bandwidth, and the user settings; (¶0100) decrypt and play content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method that downloads media content from a remote source/media provider as taught by Berger with the entitlement/DRM protection as taught by Kang in order to prevent unauthorized distribution of content thus protecting income streams.
Claim(s) 51, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger in view of Riedl et al. (US 20090100459, hereinafter Riedl.)
Regarding claim 51, Berger does not teach “The computerized client device of claim 48, wherein the media segments comprise non-time-based media segments of irregular length.” However, Riedl teaches (¶0201) segments may comprise short segments of arbitrary or irregular length, such as sports "highlight" clips lasting 10 seconds or so, or clips from live events such concerts, wherein a segment might comprise the live performance of a song, which can obviously vary in length from one song to another, or even one performance of the same song to another; (¶0195) one form of segmentation comprises segmenting a program stream at various locations within the stream corresponding to e.g., the beginning or end of a program, scene changes (such as where advertisements might be spliced in), or other logical boundaries. Alternatively, segmentation may occur based on a temporal scheme (e.g., a boundary or segmentation at every 5.0 minutes of content). Segmentation using other approaches as well. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method that downloads media content from a remote source/media provider as taught by Berger with the segmentation as taught by Riedl to provide boundaries for insertion of other content/customize ads (¶0195.)
Claim(s) 53, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger in view of Athias (US 20100125882.)
Regarding claim 53, Berger does not teach “The computerized client device of claim 48, wherein: the at least one computer program is further configured to, when executed on the processor apparatus: receive input relating to a search term; utilize the input to cause performance of a search, the search based on the search term; display of a listing of playlists, the listing of playlists resulting from the performed search; and receive input relating to a selection of a particular playlist from the displayed listing of playlists; and the retrieval of the local stream manifest comprises retrieval of a stream manifest for the selected particular playlist.” However, Athias teaches (¶0043-¶0044 and ¶0055) users are able to save playlist locally; (¶0053, claims 4 and 5) users are able to search for and obtain playlists using a search engine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the client that stores local manifests/playlist of content as taught by Berger with the search playlist function as taught by Athias for the benefit of allowing users the ability to quickly find the playlist/content that they desire.
Claim(s) 54, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger in view of Knepper et al. (US 20010042249, hereinafter Knepper.)
Regarding claim 54, Berger does not teach “The computerized client device of claim 48, wherein: the local stream manifest comprises a plurality of uniform resource locators (URLs), the plurality of URLs indicative of the respective network locations where the media segments may be accessed; and at least a portion of the plurality of URLs comprise one or more URLs punctuated with at least one of (i) HTML (HyperText Markup Language) tags or (ii) Javascript, configured to enable dynamic advertisement insertion.” However, Knepper teaches (¶0035, ¶0049) client uses a playlist/instruction file for playback; (¶0052) new (HTML) tags, not standard to HTML programming, have been developed as a feature of the invention (or as an independent invention) and are utilized to control the addition of advertisement files; (¶0053-¶0055) <ADInsert> html tag to insert advertisement Playlist=http://dl.sitename/folder1/folder2/adclip.zip; (¶0078-¶0079) other ways to load advertisements using HTML tags. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method that uses a manifest as taught by Berger to include HTML tags as taught by Knepper for the benefit of dynamically targeting advertisement to users (¶0077.)
Claim(s) 57, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger in view of Knepper and Swaminathan et al. (US 20140040026, hereinafter Swaminathan)
Regarding claim 57, Berger does not teach “The computer readable apparatus of claim 55, wherein: the obtainment of the first data comprises retrieval of at least one indication of an advertisement insertion time stamp associated with a digital media stream; and the plurality of instructions are further configured to, when executed on the processing apparatus, cause the computerized client device to: select one or more advertisement content elements of the digital media stream for replacement according to one or more preferences, the one or more preferences associated with the computerized client device or a user thereof, during each playback instance of the one or more advertisement content elements, dynamically replace, via at least the computerized client device, the one or more advertisement content elements with one or more replacement advertisement content elements at the advertisement insertion time stamp.” However, Knepper teaches (¶0035, ¶0049) client uses a playlist/instruction file for playback; (¶0052) new (HTML) tags, not standard to HTML programming, have been developed as a feature of the invention (or as an independent invention) and are utilized to control the addition of advertisement files; (¶0053-¶0055) <ADInsert> html tag to insert advertisement Playlist=http://dl.sitename/folder1/folder2/adclip.zip; (¶0078-¶0079) other ways to load advertisements using HTML tags; dynamically targeting advertisement to users (¶0077.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method that uses a manifest as taught by Berger to include dynamic HTML tags as taught by Knepper for the benefit of providing advertising that users find relevant/interesting.
Berger and Knepper do not teach “and report, to a service provider and via transmission of a data message, when the one or more replacement advertisement content elements have been played such that the service provider can account for each view of one or more advertisements respectively associated with the one or more replacement advertisement content elements.” However, Swaminathan teaches (¶0034) having information about how many advertisement markers have been replaced as well as information regarding advertisement playback history information (played by the media playback module.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify apparatus of Berger and Knepper with the providing of the advertisement playback history as taught by Swaminathan in order to determine the effectiveness of ads and whether advertising targets have been met.
Claim(s) 58, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger in view of Luong (US 20110283311) and Watanabe (US 20130282876.)
Regarding claim 58, “The computer readable apparatus of claim 55, wherein: the plurality of instructions are further configured to, when executed on the processing apparatus, cause the computerized client device to: based on receipt of second data, retrieve the generated or updated internal stream manifest, the second data representative of a request for playback of a digital media stream” Berger teaches (¶0105) local/updated manifest is used to stream/play out the video.
Berger does not teach “determine whether playback of the digital media stream is authorized; and based on a determination that playback of the digital media stream is authorized, cause display, at the computerized client device, of the digital media stream” However, Luong teaches (¶0132, ¶0133, and Fig. 12) determining if access control restrictions are applicable and that if access is restricted content is identified, replacing (i.e., omitting) the access restricted content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the local manifest of Berger to apply access restriction as taught by Luong in order to give parents control over what content their children watch.
Berger and Luong do not teach “and the playback comprises reconstruction of the digital media stream, the reconstruction comprising (i) utilization of at least the stored at least two of the plurality of digitally rendered content elements, and (ii) omission of at least one digitally rendered content element that is incompatible with one or more capabilities of the computerized client device.” However, Watanabe teaches (¶0003-¶00014) the use of an MPD to select and stream the desired representation of content; (¶0010) a plurality of representation are described whose codec, bit rate, frame rate, resolution and other information are different, the client then selects a Representation having a codec, bit rate, a frame rate, a resolution, and other information which correspond to those reproducible on the client’s machine; (¶0160-¶0161) that based on the properties of a reproducing device certain devices (e.g., a television with high resolution) can display both image content and time-text content, while other devices (e.g., mobile terminal) can display the low resolution image content but not the time-text content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Berger and Luong do not teach with the group attributes as taught by Watanabe in order for the client to understand which content can and cannot be reproduced whilst permitting users to enjoy sub video contents alongside the video.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 49 and 56 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Evans et al. (US 20030236978) - (claim 1) receiving, with a client component, encrypted content that is to be protected during a rendering process; receiving a manifest associated with the content, the manifest specifying protected media path requirements for the rendering process; verifying that the client component is a trusted component; creating a primary authenticator that can be used to authenticate one or more components downstream from the client component
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK J JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9629. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Brian T. Pendleton can be reached on 571-272-7527. 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.
/Frank Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425