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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/514,736 filed on 20 November 2023 and arguments presented on 10 February 2026, are hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-26 are pending and subject to examination.
Response to Arguments
On pages 7-8 of the response filed 10 February 2026, Applicant’s addresses the 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection made on the 10 November 2025 Non-Final Rejection. Applicant’s arguments, regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103, have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103
On page 7, Applicants argue that The applied reference “Henaire” fail to disclose or suggest at least "configure an edge device to provide a first data stream that supports the supported properties as one of a plurality of data streams," as recited in independent claim 1. Independent claim 14 recites a corresponding feature.
Applicant’s arguments based on premises that Henaire do not disclose or suggest the claimed feature. Notably, in the alleged teaching of Henaire, the decision engine is generating the encoded composite stream and does not "configure an edge device to provide a first data stream that supports the supported properties" as recited in claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and finds this argument unpersuasive. The courts have explicitly stated that the prior art need not be solving the same problem as the applicant. SeeKSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). For example, one may arrive at identical claimed invention by solving a completely different problem. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed.Cir. 1986).Applicant’s specification, in paragraph 0020 states that the premises 102 includes one or more edge devices 104. An edge device 104 may be any device that generates a data stream. For example, a data stream may be a video stream, an audio stream, or a metadata stream.
Specifically, the examiner cited prior art Henaire” discloses "configure an edge device to provide a first data stream that supports the supported properties as one of a plurality of data streams," as recited in independent claim 1.
Henaire discloses the online system can employ a decision engine that retrieves characteristics from the first or second source that respectively provided the first and second live streams, from the client devices that are requesting to access the composite stream, and additional characteristics that altogether, influence the final set of encodings that would be required (Henaire: [paragraph 0007]). Henaire further discloses the online system can employ a decision engine that is connected to an edge node (e.g. edge device) and based on the characteristics, the decision engine that is connected to an edge node identifies a set of content encodings for encoding the composite stream (Henaire: [paragraph 0026]). Henaire further discloses The decision engine 500 receives 550 characteristics associated with the composite stream to be used to determine the optimal set of content encodings. As previously stated, these characteristics may be characteristics of the first 105A or second media stream sources 105B or characteristics of the one or more client devices 110 that are requesting to access the composite stream. Based on the characteristics, the decision engine 505 identifies 555 a set of content encodings for encoding the composite stream. Thus, the decision engine 505 generates 560 each encoded composite stream (e.g. data stream) identified in the set of content encodings. In various embodiments, the decision engine 505 stores (e.g. caches) the encoded composite streams such that each encoded composite stream can be rapidly delivered to a client device 110 for an optimal viewing experience (e.g. minimal latency or buffering issues). The decision engine 500 distributes 565 the encoded composite streams to client devices 110 based on information associated with the client device. For example, if a client device is operating on a particular platform (e.g. iOS™ or Android™), the decision engine 500 transmits an encoded composite stream that can be appropriately played back using the particular platform ((Henaire: [paragraph 0073]).
Thus, Henaire” still discloses "configure an edge device to provide a first data stream that supports the supported properties as one of a plurality of data streams," as recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is hereby maintained.
Applicants argue claim 14 based on the arguments presented for Claim 1 at page 8 of the remarks. The same explanation is applicable to claim 14 as mentioned above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-26
Applicant’s argues these claims conditionally based upon arguments presented for their parent claim(s). Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and therefore, the rejections of these claims 2-13 and 15-26 are hereby maintained.
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-16 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henaire et al. (US 2018/0192080 A1, hereinafter as “Henaire”).
Regarding claim 1, Henaire teaches an apparatus for streaming data from a data store, comprising: one or more memories, individually or in combination, storing computer-executable instructions ([paragraph 0029, 0073, 0082] describes a system includes a decision engine for streaming data from a decision engine which stores (e.g. data store) encoded composite streams which can be rapidly delivered to a client device and system comprising a computer program may be stored in a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium, or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, which may be coupled to a computer system bus);
and one or more processors, individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to ([paragraph 0082] describes any computing systems referred to in the specification may include a single processor or may be architectures employing multiple processor designs for increased computing capability and processor configured to execute the instructions to cause the system to):
receive, from a client device, an indication of properties supported by the client device for a requested data stream ([paragraph 0073] describes the system includes the decision engine receives characteristics associated with the composite stream to be used to determine the optimal set of content encodings. The decision engine 500 receives 550 characteristics associated with the composite stream to be used to determine the optimal set of content encodings. As previously stated, these characteristics may be characteristics of the first 105A or second media stream sources 105B or characteristics of the one or more client devices 110 that are requesting to access the composite stream);
configure an edge device to provide a first data stream that supports the supported properties as one of a plurality of data streams; and forward the requested data stream to the client device ([paragraph 0026, 0029, 0073] describes the online system includes the decision engine that is connected to an edge node and based on the characteristics, the decision engine that is connected to an edge node identifies a set of content encodings for encoding the composite stream. Based on the characteristics, the decision engine 505 identifies 555 a set of content encodings for encoding the composite stream. Thus, the decision engine 505 generates 560 each encoded composite stream (e.g. data stream) identified in the set of content encodings. In various embodiments, the decision engine 505 stores (e.g. caches) the encoded composite streams such that each encoded composite stream can be rapidly delivered to a client device 110 for an optimal viewing experience (e.g. minimal latency or buffering issues). The decision engine 500 distributes 565 the encoded composite streams to client devices 110 based on information associated with the client device. For example, if a client device is operating on a particular platform (e.g. iOS™ or Android™), the decision engine 500 transmits an encoded composite stream that can be appropriately played back using the particular platform).
Regarding claim 2, Henaire teaches the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to provide the client device with a set of available options for the properties based on capabilities of the edge device ([paragraph 0073] describes client device that is requesting data stream and based on the characteristics, the system includes the decision engine that is connected to an edge node identifies a set of content encodings (e.g. set of available options) for encoding the composite stream. Thus, the system includes the decision engine that is connected to an edge node generates each encoded composite stream identified in the set of content encodings).
Regarding claim 3, Henaire teaches the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to configure the edge device to provide the first data stream that supports the supported properties in response to determining that the edge device does not currently provide the requested data stream in the plurality of data streams ([paragraph 0047, 0066-0067] describes the system includes the decision engine that is connected to an edge node decides that it is not providing the requested data stream then adjust the weights associated with the characteristics and the system includes the decision engine that is connected to an edge node to provide first data stream that supports the supported properties).
Regarding claim 7, Henaire teaches the apparatus, wherein the requested data stream is a video stream and the properties include one or more of: a resolution; a bit rate, a frame rate, a codec, a codec profile, or a codec property ([paragraph 0037-0038,0052] describes a configuration may specify the final resolution of the composite video stream (e.g. 720p, 1080p, 4K resolution), a first media stream and second media stream may each have video resolutions with an aspect ratio of 16:9 (e.g. 1280×720 pixels), the system includes the decision engine that is connected to an edge node generates a set of composite streams with different content configurations (e.g., different resolutions, different bit rates and frame rates, etc.,) and distributes an encoded composite stream that is appropriate to playback to a client device).
Regarding claim 8, Henaire teaches the apparatus, wherein the requested data stream is an audio stream and the properties include a range of bit rates ([paragraph 0022, 0044, 0052-0053] describes a wide set of content encodings (e.g. different video/audio formats, different video resolutions, different audio bitrates (e.g. a range of bit rates), the characteristics may be a user-selected setting (e.g. 720p or 1080p video resolution, audio bitrates)).
Regarding claim 9, Henaire teaches the apparatus, wherein the requested data stream is a metadata stream and the properties include available parameters and a range of available reporting rates ([paragraph 0023, 0034, 0052] describes metadata information of the encoded media stream that includes the encoders that were used to encode the video and audio of the media stream, and compression formats (e.g., H.264 for video and AAC for audio) for encoding the media stream, decoder module may receive associated metadata information associated with each video and audio file of a media stream that specifies the encoder that was previously used to encode each file and the decision engine that is connected to an edge node generates a set of composite streams with different content configurations (e.g., different resolutions, different bit rates and frame rates, etc.,)).
Regarding claim 10, Henaire teaches the apparatus, further comprising a data storage device configured to store the requested data stream at the data store ([paragraph 0073] describes the decision engine stores (e.g. caches) the encoded composite streams such that each encoded composite stream can be rapidly delivered to a client device for an optimal viewing experience (e.g. minimal latency or buffering issues)).
Regarding claim 11, Henaire teaches the apparatus, wherein each of the plurality of data streams include a same content having different properties ([paragraph 0073] describes the system includes the decision engine that is connected to an edge node receives characteristics associated with the plurality of composite stream to be used to determine the optimal set of content encodings and the plurality of composite stream has a plurality of composite video frames, and each composite video frame comprises a video frame from the second media stream displayed within a corresponding video frame from the first media stream).
Regarding claim 12, Henaire teaches the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to: receive a request to change the properties of the requested data stream; and forward a second data stream from the edge device to the client device instead of the requested data stream ([paragraph 0006, 0043, 0050] describes a request to change video resolution, change audio bitrate (e.g. properties) of the requested data stream and forward a second data stream from the system includes the decision engine that is connected to an edge node to the client device instead of the requested data stream to ensure that the appearance of the composite stream is consistent).
Regarding claim 13, Henaire teaches the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to store the requested data stream while forwarding the second data stream to the client device ([paragraph 0073] describes the decision engine stores (e.g. caches) the encoded composite streams and generate the second data stream to the client device).
Regarding claims14-16, these claims contain limitations found within that of claims 1-3 and the same rationale to rejections are used.
Regarding claims 20-26, these claims contain limitations found within that of claims 7-13 and the same rationale to rejections are used.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henaire et al. (US 2018/0192080 A1, hereinafter as “Henaire”); in view of Trani et al. (US 2017/0099463 A1, hereinafter as “Trani”).
Regarding Claim 4, Henaire fails to teach the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to transcode an original data stream in the plurality of data streams from the edge device to match the supported properties until the first data stream is received from the edge device.
However, Trani teaches the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to transcode an original data stream in the plurality of data streams from the edge device to match the supported properties until the first data stream is received from the edge device ([paragraph 0035-0038] describes transcode video data stream from video reorder node (e.g. edge device) and controller locates the requested video stream among the video reorder node (e.g. edge device) according to a preferred order and the stream lookup is executed in the following order until the stream is located).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Henaire to include transcode an original data stream in the plurality of data streams from the edge device to match the supported properties until the first data stream is received from the edge device as taught by Trani. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Henaire in the Trani system in order to configure and manage the components and access video/images ([paragraph 0002] in Trani).
Regarding claim 17, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 4 and the same rationale to rejection is used.
11. Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henaire et al. (US 2018/0192080 A1, hereinafter as “Henaire”); in view of Robbins et al. (US 2014/0038514 A1, hereinafter as “Robbins”).
Regarding claim 5, Henaire teaches the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to transcode the first data stream in the plurality of data streams from the edge device to the requested data stream having the supported properties ([paragraph 0026, 0029,0033, 0073] describes the system includes the decision engine that is connected to an edge node and based on the characteristics, the decision engine that is connected to an edge node identifies a set of content encodings for transcoding the composite stream. Thus, the decision engine that is connected to the edge node generates each transcoded composite stream identified in the set of content encodings. In various embodiments, the decision engine that is connected to an edge node stores (e.g. caches) the transcoded composite streams such that each transcoded composite stream can be rapidly delivered to the client device for an optimal viewing experience (e.g. minimal latency or buffering issues)),
Henaire fails to teach wherein a cost of transcoding the first data stream is less than a cost of transcoding another data stream in the plurality of data streams.
However, Robbins teaches wherein a cost of transcoding the first data stream is less than a cost of transcoding another data stream in the plurality of data streams ([paragraph 0046-0047, 0055] describes cost of transcoding a less and cost to transcode the SD stream (e.g. first data stream) into the desired format, may be much less (e.g., 75% less) than transcoding the corresponding HD input stream (e.g. second data stream)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Henaire to include wherein a cost of transcoding the first data stream is less than a cost of transcoding another data stream in the plurality of data streams as taught by Robbins. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Henaire in the Robbins system in order to provide a method for transcoding media content are less than optimal for delivery to a media playback device ([paragraph 0002] in Robbins).
Regarding claim 18, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 5 and the same rationale to rejection is used.
12. Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henaire et al. (US 2018/0192080 A1, hereinafter as “Henaire”); in view of Henaire; Mathieu et al. (US 2018/0192086 A1, hereinafter as “Mathieu”).
Regarding Claim 6, Henaire fails to teach the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to forward the first data stream to the client device as the requested data stream without transcoding.
However, Mathieu teaches the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to forward the first data stream to the client device as the requested data stream without transcoding ([paragraph 0004-0006] describes generate first original data stream of lower quality (e.g. first data stream) without transcoding to client device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Henaire to include forward the first data stream to the client device as the requested data stream without transcoding as taught by Mathieu. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Henaire in the Mathieu system in order to ensure that any client device that requests to access the live stream is able to receive the appropriately encoded live video and audio ([paragraph 0004] in Mathieu).
Regarding claim 19, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 6 and the same rationale to rejection is used.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- Rubik et al., US 2024/0205280 A1, Techniques for multicasting data to multiple clients are described.
- Mao et al., US 2016/0323606 A1, A system and a method for an edge gateway device may retrieve segments of programming, based on information in a manifest file, and output the segments via multicast to one or more edge devices are disclosed.
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 MEHULKUMAR J SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6:05 am-3:55 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, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2459 /TONIA L DOLLINGER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights