Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-24 is pending.
Response to Arguments
The Double Patenting rejections have been withdrawn in view of the approved terminal disclaimer dated 11/26/2025.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues with respect to the prior art rejection of claim 1 that Pare does not teach "receiving, by a user device, a first fragment of content; [and] determining, based on the first fragment of the content, metadata associated with a second fragment of the content." Specifically, the applicant alleges nothing in Pare teaches or suggests that the time code is "based on a [received] first fragment of content" and "associated with a second fragment of content." Rather, the time code of Pare is based on the content block being requested and is not determined based on another content block received by the listener. Further, the applicant contends Pare fails to teach or suggest "determining... metadata associated with a second fragment of the content," since Pare teaches the time code is simply a user input for content that occurs at a particular time.
The examiner disagrees. Specifically, the applicant is failing to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and has instead crudely defined their own claims with respect to the Pare reference.
Particularly, the limitations in question recite:
receiving, by a user device, a first fragment of content; [and]
determining, based on the first fragment of the content, metadata associated with a second fragment of the content.
Pare clearly discloses receiving a first block (“fragment”) and determining a time code from the first block (time codes being “metadata”) as well as the system as a whole associating time codes with all blocks in Fig. 3 and [0042]-[0043]. In other words, determining the specific time code for a first block reads on “determining, based on the first fragment of the content, metadata associated with a second fragment of the content” since all time codes read on the claimed metadata even through Pare might not be determining the specific time code for a second block. The later point is most salient and circles back to the examiner’s opening rebuttal as the applicant has erroneously required Pare to disclose this interpretation despite the broadest reasonable interpretation not requiring it.
In other words, and to reiterate, the claim does not require finding specific metadata for the second fragment alone during the determining step, but rather, “metadata associated with a second fragment of the content” and time codes are explicitly associated with every block in Pare so even determining a single time code reads on “determining, based on the first fragment of the content, metadata associated with a second fragment of the content.”
In conclusion, the claim does not differentiate between metadata associated with the first fragment and metadata associated with the second fragment, e.g. by reciting first and second metadata, but rather broadly just claims “metadata” untethered with no additional context. Therefore, the examiner’s interpretation holds true, the time codes in a given stream of content blocks in Pare read on “metadata,” and thus the claim is disclosed by Pare.
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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Pare et al (US Pub. 2005/0190911), hereafter, “Pare.”
As to claim 17, Pare discloses a system comprising:
a user device (Fig. 3, “listener”) configured to:
receive a first fragment of content (Fig. 3, “content blocks”);
determine, based on the first fragment of the content, metadata associated with a second fragment of the content (Fig. 3, [0042]-[0043], particularly, “Each block of content is associated with a range of one or more-time codes. For example, the first block of content is associated with a time code from the beginning of the content selection (e.g., 0:00) until the time boundary (e.g., 0:10). Similarly, the second block of content is associated with time codes from 0:10 to 0:20. The distribution point is configured to associate a received time code with a block of content.”; time codes reading on “metadata”);
send a request for a second fragment of the content, wherein the request comprises metadata associated with the second fragment of the content ([0047], particularly, “The listener 404 then generates a content request using a first time code (435).”));
and receive, based on the request, the second fragment of the content ([0047], particularly, “In response, the distribution point 403 receives the user request (440), identifies the encrypted block using the time code (445), and then forms a stream of messages, each of which contains its own IV and encrypted block (450)”); and
a computing device configured to:
send, to the user device, the first fragment and the second fragment of the content ([0047], particularly, “In response, the distribution point 403 receives the user request (440), identifies the encrypted block using the time code (445), and then forms a stream of messages, each of which contains its own IV and encrypted block (450)”).
As to claims 1 and 9, they are rejected by a similar rationale to that set forth in claim 17’s rejection.
As to claims 2, 10, and 18, Pare discloses the metadata comprises a time value associated with the second fragment of the content ([0047], particularly, “The listener 404 then generates a content request using a first time code (435).”).
As to claims 3, 11, and 19, Pare discloses metadata associated with the first fragment of the content comprises the metadata associated with the second fragment of the content (Fig. 3 and [0043]).
As to claims 4, 12, and 20, Pare discloses determining the metadata associated with the second fragment of the content comprises identifying the metadata associated with the second fragment of the content in the metadata of the first fragment of the content (Fig. 3 and [0043]).
As to claims 5, 13, and 21, Pare discloses the metadata associated with the second fragment of the content is located within a horizon window of the first fragment of the content (Fig. 3 and [0043]; “a horizon window” in this context would be from 0:00-1:60 and all the time codes in this exemplary stream are within that window).
As to claims 6, 14, and 22, Pare discloses the second fragment of the content is a next-in- time fragment of the content with respect to the first fragment of the content (Fig. 3 and [0043]).
As to claims 8, 16, and 24, Pare discloses causing output of the first fragment and the second fragment of the content (Fig. 3, [0040] and [0043]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7, 15, and 23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pare in view of Begen et al (US Pub. No. 2013/0042015; cited on IDS), hereafter, “Begen.”
As to claims 7, 15, and 23, Pare discloses the parent claim but does not disclose the metadata further comprises a quality level of the second fragment of the content. However, Bergen discloses metadata further comprises a quality level of a second fragment of content ([0021], particularly, “In one embodiment, an encoder (or in some embodiments, another network device such as a server) provides a content matrix organized directly (e.g., explicitly indicated) by quality level. In other words, each representation corresponds to a (single) quality level rather than a nominal or average bitrate. Metadata for each chunk comprises a quality level, and temporal duration and either size of the chunk in bytes or chunk average bitrate (these last two are conjugate variables--one can be computed from the other knowing the temporal duration)… In some embodiments, such a quality-based adaptive streaming scheme may be embedded into the metadata to enable existing client devices (without modification to software and/or hardware) to send a request (e.g., based on timestamp, bitrate, etc. as conventionally done) and a network device (e.g., a source or cache server) accesses a chunk having the highest quality level satisfying the bitrate requirement communicated by the client device.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Pare and Begen in order to provide a system that can track and manage differing qualities of streaming media so as to make the system more adaptable to differing network environments.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J DAILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/THOMAS J DAILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458