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 .
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims have been fully considered, but they are moot because of the new ground of rejection. Applicant argues that cited references failed to disclose sending, to the client device, the first portion of the manifest file in response to the request, wherein the first portion of the manifest file prevents the client device from taking at least one remedial action based on the first fragment being unavailable.
However, Baum et al show in fig.1 to fig.4 a system that allow user to send request for content and retrieve portions of frames of video content when a full frame is not available or is unavailable as disclosed in para. 0022-0025;0012;0048.
And Lo et al disclose a system being able to identify unavailable media content and based on that detection, the system can prevent user device to send additional or future requests for the unavailable media content. And finally, the system is capable of preventing repetitive redirects from being continually generated as disclosed in para.0075. This action is non-final.
Claims rejections-35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 1-7; 21-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giladi(US.Pub.No.20190020734) in view of Baum(US.Pub.No.20120030723) and Lo(US.Pub.No.20150012584).
Regarding claim 1, Giladi et al disclose a method comprising: based on a request from a client device for a segment of content(see fig.1 to fig.5 for allowing users to send requests for segments of video contents;0002; 0027;0031), determining, by a computing device, that a manifest file associated with the content indicates an availability of the segment(the system is able to determine presence or absence of segments of video content; 0031;0048-0049), wherein the segment comprises a plurality of fragments( each segment contains multiple portions or fragments;0084; 0082);
determining, based on the availability of the segment indicated by the manifest file, that a first fragment of the plurality of fragments is unavailable(see fig.1 to fig.5 showing a system for determining unavailable portions of video contents; abstract; 0003;0028;0073), wherein the first fragment is associated with a plurality of frames of the segment(the system discloses a plurality of frames associated video contents; see fig.2; 0054;0048).
determining, based on the first fragment being unavailable, a first portion of the manifest file, wherein the first portion of the manifest file is associated with the first fragment and at least one frame of the plurality of frames; and sending, to the client device, the first portion of the manifest file in response to the request, wherein the first portion of the manifest file prevents the client device from taking at least one remedial action based on the first fragment being unavailable.
However, Baum et al disclose determining, based on the first fragment being unavailable, a first portion of the manifest file, wherein the first portion of the manifest file is associated with the first fragment and at least one frame of the plurality of frames; and sending, to the client device, the first portion of the manifest file in response to the request(see fig.1 to fig.4 for allowing the system to retrieve portions of frames of video content when a full frame is not available or is unavailable ; 0022-0025;0012;0048).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Baum to modify Giladi by providing options to retrieve a single I-frame associated with a segment of video content for the purpose of avoiding displaying blank screen to the users accordingly.
And Lo et al disclose wherein the first portion of the manifest file prevents the client device from taking at least one remedial action based on the first fragment being unavailable(the system is able to identify unavailable media content and based on that detection, the system can prevent user device to send additional or future requests for the unavailable media content, thereby preventing repetitive redirects from being continually generated,0075).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lo to modify Giladi and Baum by providing options to prevent display other contents to replace unavailable content or segments or frames from the manifest for the purpose of improving viewing experiences of the users accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, Giladi et al disclose wherein determining that the first fragment is unavailable comprises determining that the plurality of frames are not yet at least one of: encoded or packaged(the system is able to determine frames not being received yet or packaged yet; 0004; 0028;0051;0083).
Regarding claim 3, Giladi et al disclose wherein the first portion of the manifest file comprises metadata associated with the segment, and wherein the metadata comprises at least one of: a segment type, an event message, or captions information associated with the segment(the system is able to provide additional data related frame of video content as name of the file; 0031; an attribute comprising a text string displayable by a user device,0055;0077;0024;0070).
Regarding claim 4, Giladi and Lo et al did not explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving, from a packaging device, at least one frame of the segment; and sending, to the client device, a second fragment of the plurality of fragments, wherein the second fragment comprises the at least one frame.
However, Baum et al disclose further comprising: receiving, from a packaging device, at least one frame of the segment; and sending, to the client device, a second fragment of the plurality of fragments, wherein the second fragment comprises the at least one frame(the system allows users to request a second frame of video content; 0014;0016;0031;0033).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Baum to modify Giladi and Lo by providing options to retrieve a single I-frame associated with a segment of video content for the purpose of avoiding displaying blank screen to the users accordingly.
Regarding claim 5, Giladi and Lo et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one frame comprises an intra- coded frame or a portion thereof.
However, Baum et al disclose wherein the at least one frame comprises an intra- coded frame or a portion thereof(see fig.1 to fig.3 showing intra-frame or I-frame or reference frame; abstract; 0012-0013; 0018).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Baum to modify Giladi and Lo by providing options to retrieve a single I-frame associated with a segment of video content for the purpose of avoiding displaying blank screen to the users accordingly.
Regarding claim 6, Giladi and Lo et al did not explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving, from a packaging device, the plurality of frames of the segment; and sending, based on the plurality of frames satisfying a threshold, a second fragment of the plurality of fragments to the client device, wherein the second fragment comprises the plurality of frames, wherein the threshold is associated with a maximum fragment duration or a maximum fragment size.
However, Baum et al disclose further comprising: receiving, from a packaging device, the plurality of frames of the segment; and sending, based on the plurality of frames satisfying a threshold, a second fragment of the plurality of fragments to the client device, wherein the second fragment comprises the plurality of frames, wherein the threshold is associated with a maximum fragment duration or a maximum fragment size(the system is able to use threshold value to determine when to transmit additional frames or segments of video content and the time needed to download the P-file can be estimated based on the size or estimated size of the P-file, ; 0039-0040).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Baum to modify Giladi and Lo by providing options to retrieve a single I-frame associated with a segment of video content for the purpose of avoiding displaying blank screen to the users accordingly.
Regarding claim 7, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 2.
Regarding claim 23, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 3.
Regarding claim 24, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 4.
Regarding claim 25, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 5.
Regarding claim 26, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 6.
Regarding claim 27, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 28, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 2.
Regarding claim 30, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 3.
Regarding claim 31, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 4.
Regarding claim 32, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 33, Giladi and Lo et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the computing device is further configured to: receive the plurality of frames of the segment; and send, based on the plurality of frames satisfying a threshold, a second fragment of the plurality of fragments, wherein the second fragment comprises the plurality of frames, and wherein the threshold is associated with a maximum fragment duration or a maximum fragment size.
However, Baum et al disclose wherein the computing device is further configured to: receive the plurality of frames of the segment; and send, based on the plurality of frames satisfying a threshold, a second fragment of the plurality of fragments, wherein the second fragment comprises the plurality of frames(the system is able to use threshold value to determine when to transmit additional frames or segments of video content; 0039-0040), and wherein the threshold is associated with a maximum fragment duration or a maximum fragment size(the time needed to download the P-file can be estimated based on the size or estimated size of the P-file,0039-0040).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Baum to modify Giladi and Lo by providing options to retrieve a single I-frame associated with a segment of video content for the purpose of avoiding displaying blank screen to the users accordingly.
Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN D SAINT CYR whose telephone number is (571)270-3224. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 Pendleton can be reached at 5712727527. 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.
/JEAN D SAINT CYR/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
/Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights