DETAILED ACTION
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, Remarks pg. 10, filed 12/19/2025, regarding the summary of the rejected claims are herein acknowledged.
Applicant's arguments, Remarks pg. 10, filed 12/19/2025, regarding the status of the Specification is hereby acknowledged. The applicant’s amendments to paragraph [0048] are supported in originally filed claim 11 and the amendments to paragraph [0049] is also supported in the originally filed specification.
Applicant's arguments, Remarks pg. 11, filed 12/19/2025, regarding the status of the claims are hereby acknowledged.
Applicant's arguments, Remarks pg. 11-12, filed 12/19/2025, regarding the rejection of the claims on obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103 are hereby acknowledged. status of the claims are hereby acknowledged. The examiner notes that the applicant’s arguments are directed, in part, to the newly amended limitations. The examiner will set forth a new grounds of rejection in order to take into consideration the newly amended limitations.
In addition to the arguments regarding the newly amended limitations, the applicant also presents arguments regarding the deficiencies of the prior art. For example, applicant argues the following with respect to the teachings of Gholmieh:
Applicant has reviewed Gholmieh and has not found there any disclosure or suggestion of receiving a manifest file associated with a media item, the manifest file including a uniform resource locator associated with media content for the media item and a latency to generate the media content. In particular, Applicant has found no suggestion in Gholmieh to receive a manifest file that includes a latency to generate the media content. Furthermore, as to the claims as now amended, Applicant has found no suggestion in Gholmieh to receive a manifest file that specifies a latency to generate the media content before the media content is provided to the media playback device.
The claims as now amended provide that the latency specified by the manifest file that the media playback device receives is latency to generate the media content before the media content is provided to the media playback device. According to Applicant's specification, an example of
this would be latency for the media content generator 108 of the content distribution network 106 to generate the media content before the content distribution network sends the media content to the media playback device.
Applicant has found no disclosure in Gholmieh of a media playback device receiving a manifest file that specifies latency to generate the media content, where that latency is latency to generate the media content before the media content is provided to the media playback device.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Additionally, on the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court stated the analysis of a rejection on obviousness grounds need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The obvious analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation. Id. at 419. Further, the Court stated that common sense teaches, however, that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. See id. at 420.
In further view of the obviousness standards discussed above, Gholmieh discloses a manifest file that describes the segment availability timeline as an MPD and wherein segments are requested using URL’s. See Gholmieh para 0049, 0054, 104-107 disclosing applicant’s alleged deficiency relating to Gholmieh does not disclose or suggest that the manifest file includes a uniform resource locator associated with media content for the media item. Furthermore, the applicant’s argument alleges that Gholmieh does not disclose or suggest a latency to generate the media content, however, the Office Action cited paragraphs 48-49, 54, 56, 104 for disclosing a latency to generate the media content. For example, Gholmieh paragraphs 47-50, 54, 56, 104 discloses that a receiver device accounts for delays in the availability of data segments (“segment availability”) in a data stream for use on the receiver device and that a receiver device may determine a delay adjustment to account for delays in the availability of segments to a client application on the receiver device. Gholmieh paragraphs 47-50, 54, 56, 104 also disclose that delay data may be provided in a manifest file or may be delivered to the receiver device in any message, such as in a service announcement and/or may be delivered to the receiver device in a message independent of the message in which a MPD may be delivered.
All things considered, whereas the applicant’s arguments above discuss that argues that “Applicant has found no suggestion in Gholmieh to receive a manifest file that includes a latency to generate the media content. Furthermore, as to the claims as now amended, Applicant has found no suggestion in Gholmieh to receive a manifest file that specifies a latency to generate the media content before the media content is provided to the media playback device…,” the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The examiner will set forth a new grounds of rejection in order to take into consideration the newly amended limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gholmieh; Ralph Akram et al. US 20200128058 A1 (hereafter Gholmieh) and in further view of Mao; Yinian et al. US 20140222962 A1 (hereafter Mao).
Regarding claim 1, “a method comprising: sending from a media playback device a request to generate a manifest file associated with a media item; at a first time, receiving by the media playback device the manifest file associated with the media item, the manifest file specifying a uniform resource locator associated with media content for the media item and a latency to generate the media content before the media content is provided to the media playback device” Gholmieh discloses a manifest file that describes the segment availability timeline as an MPD and wherein segments are requested using URL’s. See Gholmieh para 0049, 0054, 102-107 disclosing that the manifest file includes a uniform resource locator associated with media content for the media item and wherein Gholmieh discloses a latency to generate the media content wherein paragraphs 48-49, 54, 56 discuss a latency to generate the media content. For example, Gholmieh paragraphs 47-50, 54, 56 discloses that a receiver device accounts for delays in the availability of data segments (“segment availability”) in a data stream for use on the receiver device and that a receiver device may determine a delay adjustment to account for delays in the availability of segments to a client application on the receiver device. Gholmieh paragraphs 47-50, 54, 56 also disclose that delay data may be provided in a manifest file or may be delivered to the receiver device in any message, such as in a service announcement and/or may be delivered to the receiver device in a message independent of the message in which a MPD may be delivered; para 56-57 and Fig. 3a-3b correspond to a latency to generate the media content and the DASH client 308 may receive the delay adjustment message 316 and use the delay adjustment message 316 to modify requests for segments from the local HTTP server of the receiver device. Regarding “determining by the media playback device a second time based at least in part on the specified latency to generate the media content; at the second time, using by the media playback device the specified uniform resource locator to request the media content from a content distribution network; receiving by the media playback device, from the content distribution network, the media content; and playing by the media playback device, the media content” Gholmieh paragraphs 47-50, 54, 56 discloses that a receiver device accounts for delays in the availability of data segments (“segment availability”) in a data stream for use on the receiver device and that a receiver device may determine a delay adjustment to account for delays in the availability of segments to a client application on the receiver device and corresponds to a second time based in part on the latency to generate the media content using the URL.
The motivation to modify the teachings of Gholmieh is further evidenced in the teachings of Mao para 23 disclosing a known problem in video streaming for enabling a client device and a server to be approximately synchronized when there is a time delta or plus or minus a few seconds between a clock of the client device and a clock of the server device which may lead to the client being unable to retrieve Segments; see also para 35-57 client schedules the playout of media segments based on the available information in the MPD manifest comprising delay/latency which is taken into consideration when obtaining segments for media content and presentation of segment for media content.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gholmieh invention enabling a client device to request to generate a manifest file associated with a media item; at a first time, receiving by the media playback device the manifest file associated with the media item, the manifest file specifying a uniform resource locator associated with media content for the media item and a latency to generate the media content before the media content is provided to the media playback device and determining by the media playback device a second time based at least in part on the specified latency to generate the media content; at the second time, using by the media playback device the specified uniform resource locator to request the media content from a content distribution network because Mao recognizes a known problem in video streaming for enabling a client device and a server to be approximately synchronized when there is a time delta or plus or minus a few seconds between a clock of the client device and a clock of the server device which may lead to the client being unable to retrieve segments and enables a client to schedule the playout of media segments based on the available information in the MPD manifest comprising delay/latency which is taken into consideration when obtaining segments for media content and presentation of segment for media content.
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the media content is a video” is further rejected on obvious grounds as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 wherein Gholmieh Fig. 8c and para 60-61 disclose video segments.
Regarding claim 4, “wherein the manifest file further includes an expiration time for the uniform resource locator; wherein the method further comprises: making a determination, based on the expiration time of the uniform resource locator, of whether the uniform resource locator is valid, wherein using the uniform resource locator to request the media content from the content distribution network is based on the determination being that the uniform resource locator is valid” is further rejected on obvious grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3 wherein Mao para 20-24, 27 discloses a time at which a segment is available and a window of when the segment will be available; see also para 58 identifying a segment in a period is available at least until a designated time.
Regarding claim 5, “wherein determining the second time comprises: determining a time for the media playback device to play the media content; determining a buffer time; subtracting, from the time to for the media playback device to play the media item, the buffer time and the latency to generate the media content” is further rejected on obvious grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3-4 wherein Mao para 35, 150, 160-162 teaches buffer time, and an shift buffer depth and client device 40 can only build up a maximum of a 5-second media buffer, and have a maximum of 5 second latency. In the second case, the local clock of client device 40 is behind the clock of server device 60 by 5 second. As a result, client device 40 will be able to build a 15-second buffer, at the expense of having a 15-second latency. See also Gholmieh discussing processing delay adjustment comprises buffer time and latency in Fig. 4 and 5A.
Regarding claim 6, “wherein the request to generate the manifest file associated with the media item includes a media item identifier and a characteristic of the media playback device” is further rejected on obvious grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3-5 wherein Gholmieh para 102 teaches a characteristic of the media playback device as a mobile group identifier; wherein Mao para 19, 129, 131-137 discloses DASH specifies segment formats and wherein client may provide configuration data of client device. See also Mao para 140 request for a particular media content is interpreted as a media identifier. Examiner takes Official Notice that MPD manifest files comprise a media item identifier is well known.
Regarding claim 7, “wherein the characteristic of the media playback device comprises a file format playable by the media playback device; and wherein the uniform resource locator is based at least in part on the file format playable by the media playback device” is further rejected on obvious grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3-6 wherein Mao para 19, 129, 131-140 discloses DASH specifies segment formats and wherein client may provide configuration data of client device.
Regarding claim 8, “wherein the characteristic of the media playback device further comprises one or more of a playable bit rate, a playable sample rate, or a screen size” is further rejected on obvious grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3-7 wherein Mao para 19, 129, 131-140 discloses DASH specifies segment formats and wherein client may provide configuration data of client device comprising bit rate.
Regarding claim 9, “wherein the uniform resource locator is based at least in part on the media item identifier” is further rejected on obvious grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3-8 wherein Gholmieh para 102 teaches a characteristic of the media playback device as a mobile group identifier; wherein Mao para 19, 129, 131-140 discloses DASH specifies segment formats and wherein client may provide configuration data of client device. See also Mao para 140 request for a particular media content is interpreted as a media identifier. Examiner takes Official Notice that MPD manifest files comprise URL identifying a media item identifier is well known.
Regarding claim 11, “wherein the manifest file includes a plurality of uniform resource locators, wherein each uniform resource locator of the plurality of uniform resource locators is associated with different media content for the media item; and wherein the method further comprises selecting the uniform resource locator from the plurality of uniform resource locators based on a network connection or a media content quality” is further rejected on obvious grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3-8 wherein Mao para 28-29, 131-132, 138-139, 146-147, 171 disclosing adaptation sets comprising subset of representations 68 (e.g., an adaptation set) having characteristics that can be satisfied by the coding and rendering capabilities of client device 40. Retrieval unit 52 may then determine bitrates for representations in the adaptation set, determine a currently available amount of network bandwidth, and retrieve segments from one of the representations having a bitrate that can be satisfied by the network bandwidth.
Regarding claim 12, “wherein the latency to generate the media content comprises a latency upper bound and a latency lower bound” is further rejected on obvious grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11 wherein Mao para 35, 150, 160-162 teaches buffer time, and an shift buffer depth and client device 40 can only build up a maximum of a 5-second media buffer, and have a maximum of 5 second latency. In the second case, the local clock of client device 40 is behind the clock of server device 60 by 5 second. As a result, client device 40 will be able to build a 15-second buffer, at the expense of having a 15-second latency. See also Gholmieh discussing processing delay adjustment comprises buffer time and latency in Fig. 4 and 5A.
Regarding claim 14, “wherein the media content is streamed from the content distribution network to the media playback device” is further rejected on obvious grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13 wherein Gholmieh para 53 teaches MPD and segments are provided from server 108 interpreted as a content distribution network.
Regarding the system claims 15, 18 and the device the claim 19 are grouped and rejected with the method claims 1, 3-9, 11-12, 14 because the steps of the method claims are met by the disclosure of the apparatus and methods of the reference(s) as discussed in the rejection of claims 2 and because the steps of the method are easily converted into elements of computer implemented device and methods by one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to claim 15 reciting a backend platform, Gholmieh Fig. 1 and para 53 disclose backend platform elements 1080sorresponding to servers communicating with base stations 104 via Internet 110.
Regarding claim 16, “further comprising a controller device different from the media playback device; wherein the backend platform is configured to: receive, from the controller device, a request to play a sequence of media items; and in response to receiving the request to play the sequence of media items, select the media item as part of the sequence of media items” is further rejected on obvious grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13-15, 18 wherein Gholmieh teaches Fig. 2 and para 54 element 204, 206 and 208 for recovering segments from remote server.
Claim(s) 2, 13, 17, 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gholmieh; Ralph Akram et al. US 20200128058 A1 (hereafter Gholmieh) and in further view of Mao; Yinian et al. US 20140222962 A1 (hereafter Mao) and in further view of KITAZATO; Naohisa et al. US 20180048941 A1 (hereafter Kitazato).
Regarding claim 2, “wherein the media content is synthesized audio; wherein the uniform resource locator includes text to be spoken; and wherein the content distribution network provides the text to be spoken to a text-to-speech generator configured to generate the synthesized audio based on the text to be spoken” Gholmieh and Mao render obvious the MPD manifest comprises URLs for obtaining segments but are silent with respect to synthesized audio; wherein the uniform resource locator includes text to be spoken. In an analogous art, Kitazato teaches the deficiency in para 57, 161-162 in the url attribute, the URL of an acquisition destination of text information used for voice reading is designated. For example, as this URL, the URL of the server 30 that provides text information used for voice reading may be designated.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gholmieh and Mao for enabling a client device to request a manifest file associated with a media item and at a first time receiving the manifest file associated with the media item, the manifest file including a uniform resource locator (URL) associated with media content for the media item and a latency to generate the media content and determining a second time based at least in part on the latency to generate the media content and using the URL to request the media content from a content distribution server the requested media content for presentation at the client device and based on the available information in the MPD manifest comprising delay/latency which is taken into consideration when obtaining segments for media content and presentation of segment for media content by further incorporating known elements of Kitazato of providing URL links in a MPD data for URL of an acquisition destination of text information used for voice reading and provides text information used for voice reading may be designated in order to provide a vocalizer for presenting content associated with presented media.
Regarding claim 13, “wherein the media item belongs to a sequence of media items, the sequence of media items including a music track; and wherein the media content for the media item is a narration related to at least the music track” is further rejected on obvious grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11 wherein Mao para 25-26 teaches movie fragment comprises several track fragments of different tracks comprising audio. See also Kitazato teaches the deficiency in para 57, 161-162 in the url attribute, the URL of an acquisition destination of text information used for voice reading is designated. For example, as this URL, the URL of the server 30 that provides text information used for voice reading may be designated.
Regarding the system claim 17 and the device the claim 20 are grouped and rejected with the method claims 2 because the steps of the method claims are met by the disclosure of the apparatus and methods of the reference(s) as discussed in the rejection of claims 2 and because the steps of the method are easily converted into elements of computer implemented device and methods by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gholmieh; Ralph Akram et al. US 20200128058 A1 (hereafter Gholmieh) and in further view of Mao; Yinian et al. US 20140222962 A1 (hereafter Mao) and in further view of Oyman; Ozgur US 20170134356 A1 (hereafter Oyman).
Regarding claim 10, Gholmieh and Mao are silent with respect to “wherein the uniform resource locator is signed; and 37wherein the content distribution network is configured to verify that the uniform resource locator is signed. In an analogous art, Oyman teaches the deficiency (see para 29-40, 59-62 URL signature for providing segment authentication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gholmieh and Mao for enabling a client device to request a manifest file associated with a media item and at a first time receiving the manifest file associated with the media item, the manifest file including a uniform resource locator (URL) associated with media content for the media item and a latency to generate the media content and determining a second time based at least in part on the latency to generate the media content and using the URL to request the media content from a content distribution server the requested media content for presentation at the client device and based on the available information in the MPD manifest comprising delay/latency which is taken into consideration when obtaining segments for media content and presentation of segment for media content by further incorporating known elements of Oyman for providing URL links in a MPD data comprising URL signatures in order to provide content authentication as a measure of provide content security.
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 ALFONSO CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3950. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10am to 6pm.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALFONSO CASTRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421