DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission dated 12 August 2025 has been received and made of record. Claims 1-20 have been amended. Claim 21 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12 August 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claims 1, 9, and 15 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,426,244) in view of Fisher et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0126248). The new rejection is detailed below.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 13, 14, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10218756 in view of Fisher et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0126248), hereinafter Fisher.
Claims 1 and 3 / 13 and 14/19 and 21 of ‘756 recites a method/apparatus/system of receiving, by a computing device and from a user device, a first request for a content fragment; transmitting, by the computing device and to a server device, a second request for a second portion of the content fragment, wherein the first portion of the content fragment and the second portion of the content fragment are different portions of the content fragment; determining, prior to receiving an entirety of the second portion of the content fragment from the server device, that a buffer, of the computing device, is filled; transmitting, by the computing device and to the user device, and based on the determining that the buffer is filled, an initial received portion of the second portion of the content fragment, from the filled buffer; and transmitting, by the computing device and to the user device, and after transmitting the initial received portion, an additional received portion of the second portion of the content fragment, wherein the initial received portion and the additional received portion are different portions of the second portion of the content fragment, wherein the first request for the content fragment comprises a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) request for the content fragment, wherein the HTTP request comprises a timeout value indicating a time period after transmission of the request at which a timeout may occur, and wherein the transmitting the additional received portion of the content fragment comprises transmitting the additional received portion of the content fragment in advance of the timeout. The method of claims 1 and 3 differs from claim 1/9/15 herein in that the request for content at a first quality, receiving a portion of the content at the first quality, and sending the portion of the content at the first quality.
Fisher shows that a client may request and receive content a desired bitrate or quality. ([0069], lines 1-3; [0070], lines 1-10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified ‘756 to incorporate the teachings of Fisher to provide the content in a quality that the user device desires.
Instant Application
Patent No. 10218756
Claim 1
A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device from a user device, a message requesting a content item at a first quality, wherein the request is associated with an expiration time;
receiving, from a content server, a portion of the requested content item at the first quality; and
based on a current time and the expiration time, sending, before completely receiving the requested content item, the received portion of the content item at the first quality.
Claim 1
A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and from a user device, a first request for a content fragment; based on a determination that a first portion of the content fragment is stored locally in the computing device, transmitting, by the computing device and to the user device, the first portion of the content fragment;
transmitting, by the computing device and to a server device, a second request for a second portion of the content fragment, wherein the first portion of the content fragment and the second portion of the content fragment are different portions of the content fragment; determining, prior to receiving an entirety of the second portion of the content fragment from the server device, that a buffer, of the computing device, is filled; transmitting, by the computing device and to the user device, and based on the determining that the buffer is filled, an initial received portion of the second portion of the content fragment, from the filled buffer; and transmitting, by the computing device and to the user device, and after transmitting the initial received portion, an additional received portion of the second portion of the content fragment, wherein the initial received portion and the additional received portion are different portions of the second portion of the content fragment.
Claim 3
The method of claim 1, wherein the first request for the content fragment comprises a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) request for the content fragment, wherein the HTTP request comprises a timeout value indicating a time period after transmission of the request at which a timeout may occur, and wherein the transmitting the additional received portion of the content fragment comprises transmitting the additional received portion of the content fragment in advance of the timeout.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 18, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 11356491. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are an obvious variation.
Instant Application
Patent No. 11356491
Claim 1
A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device from a user device, a message requesting a content item at a first quality, wherein the request is associated with an expiration time;
receiving, from a content server, a portion of the requested content item at the first quality; and
based on a current time and the expiration time, sending, before completely receiving the requested content item, the received portion of the content item at the first quality.
Claim 1
A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device from a user device, a request for content, wherein a first portion of the content is stored at the computing device; based on an expiration period of the request and prior to receiving a second portion of the content, sending, by the computing device to the user device, the first portion of the content; and after receiving the second portion of the content, sending, by the computing device to the user device, the second portion of the content.
Claim 6
The method of claim 1, wherein the expiration period is based on an indication of a time duration associated with the content.
Claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein the expiration period comprises a quantity of time that the user device will wait before terminating the request.
Claim 9
The method of claim 1, wherein the request comprises a request for the content in a first content quality, and wherein the expiration period comprises a quantity of time that the user device will wait before sending a second request for the content in a second content quality different than the first content quality.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 10, 15, 21, 26, 28, 31, 35, 39, and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 11943272. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are an obvious variation.
Instant Application
Patent No. 11943272
Claim 1
A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device from a user device, a message requesting a content item at a first quality, wherein the request is associated with an expiration time;
receiving, from a content server, a portion of the requested content item at the first quality; and
based on a current time and the expiration time, sending, before completely receiving the requested content item, the received portion of the content item at the first quality.
Claim 1
A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device from a user device, a request for content; based on an expiration period of the request and prior to receiving a second portion of the content from a content server, sending, to the user device, a first portion of the content; and after sending the first portion of the content to the user device, sending, to the user device, the second portion of the content.
Claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein the request comprises a request for a first quality version of the content, the method further comprising: receiving, after the expiration period, a second request for a second quality version of the content instead of the first quality version.
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 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,426,244), hereinafter Wang, in view of Fisher et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0126248), hereinafter Fisher.
Regarding claim 1, Wang shows
A method comprising: (Fig. 2, 202; Fig. 8; Column 16, lines 1-18 and 33-42; i.e. A method performed by an edge server/computer system comprising processor, memory and instructions to implement the method.)
receiving, by a computing device (Fig. 2, 202; i.e. edge server) from a user device, (Fig. 1, 104; Column 4, lines 51-65; i.e. requester user computer) a message (Fig. 2, 214) requesting a content item (i.e. TTL of the content item requested) (Column 12, line 63 – Column 13, line 7; i.e. The request is associated with the TTL of the content item because it is a request for that content item.)
receiving, from a content server, (Fig. 2, 204; i.e. MAS) a portion of the requested content item (Column 13, lines 44-54)
based on a current time and the expiration time, (i.e. it is determined that current time is greater that the expiration time/TTL – the content at the edge server is stale) sending, before completely receiving the requested content item, the received portion of the requested content item (Column 13, lines 24-36 and lines 55-65)
However, Wang fails to show that the content item is requested and received at a first quality.
Fisher shows that a client may request and receive content a desired bitrate or quality. ([0069], lines 1-3; [0070], lines 1-10)
Fisher and Wang are considered analogous art because they involve content streaming through a proxy/edge device. Wang shows the edge device receiving the requests and providing the requested content. Fisher shows that the request may include a desired bit rate or quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified Wang to incorporate the teachings of Fisher wherein the content item is requested and received at a first quality. Doing so provides that the client receives the content at the best desired quality.
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Fisher shows all of the features with respect to claim 1. Wang in view of Fisher further shows
The method of claim 1, wherein the first quality comprises: a bit rate of the requested content item, or a version of the requested content item. (Fisher: [0069], lines 1-6)
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified Wang to incorporate the teachings of Fisher wherein the first quality comprises: a bit rate of the requested content item, or a version of the requested content item for the same motivation as detailed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Fisher shows all of the features with respect to claim 1. Wang in view of Fisher further shows
The method of claim 1, wherein the expiration time (i.e. TTL) is based on:
a quantity of time that the user device will wait before resending the request for the content item,
a quantity of time that the user device will wait before terminating the request for the content item, or
an indication of a time duration (i.e. amount of time the content is valid) associated with the content. (Wang: Column 7, lines 54-60)
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Fisher shows all of the features with respect to claim 1. Wang in view of Fisher further shows
The method of claim 1, wherein the requested content item is a fragment (i.e. portion) of video content. (Wang: Column 7, lines 12-15)
Regarding claim 9, this device claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 1 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 10, this device claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 2 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 13, this device claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 5 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 15, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 1 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 16, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 2 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 19, this system claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 5 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Fisher as applied above, and further in view of Dunstan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0302320), hereinafter Dunstan.
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Fisher shows all of the features with respect to claim 1. However, Wang in view of Fisher fails to show
The method of claim 1, wherein sending the received portion of the requested content item is further based on determining that the received portion of the requested content item comprises a maximum transmission unit (MTU) of content.
Dunstan shows
wherein sending the received portion of the requested content item is further based on determining that the received portion of the requested content item comprises a maximum transmission unit (MTU) of content. ([0047]; i.e. The source controller only sends packets that fit the MTU. Therefore, it would only send the content fragment when it is determined that is comprises a MTU of content.)
Dunstan and Wang in view of Fisher are considered analogous art because the involve HTTP based content delivery. Wang shows an edge server or proxy which sends portions/fragments of the content to the client. Dunstan shows that such a proxy may only send the fragments when they comprise an MTU of content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified Wang in view of Fisher to incorporate the teachings of Dunstan wherein sending the received portion of the requested content item is further based on determining that the received portion of the requested content item comprises a maximum transmission unit (MTU) of content. Doing so avoids IP packet fragmentation and reassembly overhead. (Dunstan: [0047])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, and 21 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE H JAHNIGE whose telephone number is (571)272-8450. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Christopher Parry can be reached at (571) 272-8328. 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.
/CAROLINE H JAHNIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451