DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Status of the application
2. This Office Action is in response to Applicant's amendment filed on 02/05/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending for this examination.
Acknowledgement
Claims 1 - 20 are pending.
Claims 3, 10, 12 and 20 have been amended.
In light of the amendments, the 35 USC 112(b) rejections for claims 3, 12 and 20 have been withdrawn.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicants' arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered and addressed but found not persuasive. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL. Applicant' s arguments in substance are as follows:Applicant argues on page 8/10, starting from 3rd line from the bottom of the “Remarks” section, "The Office appears to equate Hao' s content device to the claimed transcoder device and appears to equate Hao's "bitrates" to the claimed "one or more characteristics associated with a fragment of a first content item." But Hao does not disclose that the content device receives data indicating the bitrates from at least one computing device, where the at least one computing device determined the bitrates based on a manifest file.”
Examiner's Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hao recites in [0029] “Content devices 110 include network devices that provide the program service. According to an exemplary embodiment, content devices 110 include network devices that provide various program services, such as a program processing device (e.g., transcoding, encryption, etc.), a digital rights management device, a licensing device, a login
device (e.g., authentication, authorization, etc.), a program storage device, a metadata storage device, and a program server device.” This shows that device 110 is not only a content device but it is also a computing device which provides various services in addition to be a content device. Hao teaches that the content device receives data indicating bit-rate. Please note that here bit-rate is determined and modified using a M3U8 file. M3U8 file is part of a manifest file. (Please refer to “CDN Certified-Manifest file” glossary file attached.)
Applicant argues on page 9/10, starting at line 4 the “Remarks” section,
“To the extent that Hao discloses any device "determining" the bitrates based on the manifest file, such a device is, at best, Hao's content device. Nowhere does Hao disclose a device other than the content device "determining" the bitrates" based on a manifest file and then sending data indicating the determined bitrates to the content device.”
Examiner's Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 10 does not specify that a content device and the computing device are separate entities. Hao teaches that the device 110 provides the service as a content device and also as a computing device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao et al. (hereinafter Hao, Publication No.: US 2016/0182966) in view of Venkatraman et al. (hereinafter Venkatraman, Publication No.: US 2014/0109153).
As per claim 10, (Currently amended) Hao teaches,
receiving, at a transcoder device and from at least one computing device, data indicating one or more characteristics associated with a fragment of a first content item, and wherein the one or more characteristics are determined by the at least one computing device based on a manifest file associated with the fragment of the first content item; (Hao recites in [0029] “Content devices 110 include network devices that provide the program service. According to an exemplary embodiment, content devices 110 include network devices that provide various program services, such as a program processing device (e.g., transcoding, encryption, etc.), a digital rights management device, a licensing device, a login device (e.g., authentication, authorization, etc.), a program storage device, a metadata storage device, and a program server device.” This shows that a content device works as a transcoder device. Hao recites in [0029] bottom 7 lines, “For example, content device 110-1 obtains the manifest file, obtains the M3U8 file for each bitrate, modifies the M3U8 file by adding multicast information, obtains the transport stream files, segments the transport stream files based on the MTU of the multicast channel, and multicasts the segmented transport stream files.” This shows that manifest file is obtained and bitrate has been identified as a characteristic.)
Hao teaches transcoding of content files. Hao does not explicitly teach, “based on the one or more characteristics, transcoding a fragment of a second content item; and sending the transcoded fragment of the second content item to the at least one computing device.” However, in analogous art of content management, Venkatraman teaches,
based on the one or more characteristics, transcoding a fragment of a second content item; and (Venkatraman recites in [0039] “Process 500 ingests (either proactively or reactively) the original manifest file and changes it to include "mobile-network friendly" bit-rates and streams for the video. Each segment received from the server of origin is transcoded (or transrated) to the bit-rate/resolution of the streams added in the manifest file.” This teaches transcoding a second content item based on characteristic bitrate.)
sending the transcoded fragment of the second content item to the at least one computing device. (Venkatraman recites in [0040] “When the client device requests the manifest file, process 500 delivers the modified manifest file, enabling the client to request the streams that are created dynamically by the mobile CDN server 102.” This teaches that client device enabled to get the transcoded fragment.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Hao of content management by incorporating the teaching “based on the one or more characteristics, transcoding a fragment of a second content item; and sending the transcoded fragment of the second content item to the at least one computing device” of Venkatraman. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of transcoding one content file with characteristics of another content file for making both content files of similar characteristics such that they can be treated similarly.
As per claim 11, Hao teaches,
wherein the fragment of the first content item is encrypted, and wherein the one or more characteristics are determined without decrypting the fragment of the first content item. (Hao teaches that characteristic is determined from a manifest file. Open Document specification teaches that the manifest file manifest.xml is not encrypted. Please refer to “Open Document Specification”. Since the characteristics is determined from a manifest file, which is not encrypted, there is no need of decrypting an encrypted the content file. Please refer to StackOverflow and “Open Document Specification” files attached.)
As per claim 13, Hao teaches,
wherein the one or more characteristics comprises at least one of a duration of the fragment of the first content item, a chunk size associated with the fragment, a video resolution of the fragment, an audio sampling of the fragment, a bit rate associated with the fragment, a video codec associated with the fragment, or supplemental content insertion cues associated with the fragment. (It has been shown above that Hao teaches that bit-rate is a characteristic determined from a manifest file.)
Claim 14 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao and Venkatraman as applied to claim 10 in view of Phillips et al. (hereinafter Phillips, Pub. No.: US 2020/0107003).
As per claim 14, Hao and Venkataraman teach content file management. They do not explicitly teach, “wherein the transcoded fragment of the second content item is associated with one or more overlays configured to display information indicating the one or more characteristics.” However, in analogous art of content file management, Phillips teaches,
wherein the transcoded fragment of the second content item is associated with one or more overlays configured to display information indicating the one or more characteristics. (Phillips recites in [0170] starting at line 13, “A manifest defining the tiles, resource locations, tile bitrates, etc. may be provided to the client device, which may be configured to measure available bandwidth and select a set of HQ tiles (having corresponding bitrates) for overlay in a viewport associated with the client's display device (e.g., in a headset's FoV).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Hao and Venkatraman of content management by incorporating the teaching “wherein the transcoded fragment of the second content item is associated with one or more overlays configured to display information indicating the one or more characteristics.” of Phillips. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of overlays for efficient display of the content.
Claim 15 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao and Venkatraman as applied to claim 10 in view of Sturm et al. (hereinafter Sturm, Pub. No.: US 2022/0272397).
As per claim 15, Hao and Venkataraman teach content file management. They do not explicitly teach, “wherein the first content item comprises a linear content item.” However, in analogous art of content file management, Sturm teaches,
wherein the first content item comprises a linear content item. (Sturm recites in [0012] “A content asset may comprise one or more of linear content, non-linear content, video content, audio content, multi-media content, a movie, a television show, a presentation, a song, an album, a live broadcast, recorded content, stored content, or any other form of content a user may wish to consume.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Hao and Venkatraman of content management by incorporating the teaching “wherein the first content item comprises a linear content item.” of Sturm. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of Sturm of linear content item for efficient display of the content item.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 16 - 20 are objected to as being part of an application with some rejected claims, but would be allowable if written excluding the rejected claims. Please note that for an application to be allowable all claims need to be allowable.
References of Note
Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §§ 2141.02 and 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAIN M MORSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-3335. The examiner can normally be reached on 12:00PM-9:00PM Eastern. The email address for the examiner is hossain.morshed@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui can be reached on 571-272-3708.
/HOSSAIN M MORSHED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191 May 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights