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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-8, 10 have been considered but are moot as discussed in new ground of rejection below.
With respect to Applicant’s argument regarding newly added limitation of determining, based on a data size of uploaded data, whether uploaded dada is request data or acknowledgement data, Edlund (US 20140180366 – see for example, paragraphs 0055-0057, 0092) is relied on as an example to provide evidence that this teaching is well-known in the art. In addition, L’Heureux (US 20140258366: paragraphs 0025, 0047) is relied on for the teaching of acknowledgement data (confirmation message) for notifying that media data has been received.
It is also noted that non-functional descriptive material does not patentably distinguish over prior art that otherwise renders the claims unpatentable. See for example, MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2112.01(III). See also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Exparte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (discussing cases pertaining to non-functional descriptive material) see also BPAI’s decision in Appeal 2009-010851 (for Ser. No. 10/622,876) or BPAI’s decision in Appeal 2011-011929 (for Ser. No. 11/709,170), pages 6-7. In this case, a particular type of information such as “…request data for requesting video data” could be considered as non-functional descriptive material and are not required to give patentable weight because a particular type of data does not functionally change the structure or operation of a system of determining a type of data in a request to perform the particular request. The “requesting data for requesting the video data” is only given patentable weight of a request data.
Although non-functional descriptive material are not required to be considered, all claim limitations including non-functional descriptive material are known by prior art.
For the reasons given above, rejection of claims 1-2, 4-8, 10 are discussed below.
Claims 3 and 9 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 5 depends on canceled claim 3. Thus, the boundaries of the claim are unknown. It is interpreted as best understood as claim 5 depend on claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over L’Heureux et al. (US 20140258366) in view of Liu et al. (US 20200145701) and further in view of Edlund (US 20140180366) or Mukaiyachi (US 20220070544).
Regarding claim 1, L’Heureux discloses a data relay apparatus arranged between a client terminal and a distribution server for distributing media data and configured to transmit the media data distributed from the distribution server to the client terminal (Internet Gateway 160 arranged between requesting client device 130 and distribution server such as media server device 120 and/or one of other client devices that stores the requested content for distributing media data and configured to transmit the media data distributed from the distribution server such as media server device 120/other client device – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1-2, 4, paragraphs 0012-0013), the data relay apparatus (Internet Gateway 160) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (see figure 1, paragraphs 0012-0013); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (see include, but are not limited to, figure 1, paragraphs 0012-0013) to:
receive uploaded data to be transmitted from the client terminal to the distribution server and determine whether the uploaded data is request data for requesting data for requesting media data or acknowledgement data for notifying that the media data has been received (receive data in request to be transmitted from the requesting client 130 to the distribution/content server and determine whether the data in the request is request data for requesting media data or confirmation data (in confirmation message) for confirming that the media data has been received – see include, but are not limited to, figures 2-4, paragraphs 0025, 0037, 0040, 0044, 0047-0049); and
determine whether or not accelerated playback of the media data is being performed at the client terminal (determine whether or not accelerated play/seek location/fast forward, etc. of the media data is being performed at the requesting client device – see include, but are not limited to, figures 5-4, paragraphs 0051-0052, 0056).
L’Heureux further discloses media identifier may comprises a media item title. Thus, a movie title such as “On Any Sunday” may be a media identifier (paragraph 0024). L’Heureux does not explicitly disclose media data is video data and determine, based on a data size of data, whether the data is request data for requesting the video data or acknowledgment data for notifying that the video data has been received.
Additionally and/or alternatively, Liu discloses a data relaying apparatus (e.g., proxy server and/or streaming client and/or server – figures 1-3) for distributing video data and configured to transmit the video data to the client terminal, the data relay apparatus comprising: at least one processor configured to execute instructions for distributing video data (processor in server comprising proxy server configured to executed instructions for distributing video data- see include, but are not limited to, figures 1, 8, paragraphs 0066, 0161, 0247-0248 ) to:
receive uploaded data to be transmitted from the client terminal to the distribution server and determine whether the uploaded data is requesting data for requesting the video data (receive data in request to be transmitted from the client 140 to the content server 120,110,112 and determine whether the data in the request is for requesting the video data for particular portion, trick play rate, byte range request, etc. – see discussion in “response to arguments” above and include, but are not limited to, figures 2-7, paragraphs 0052, 0081, 0083, 0085-0088, 0096-0097, 0100-0101, 0117, 0119, 0135); and
determine whether or not accelerated playback of the video data is being performed at the client terminal (determine whether or not accelerated play/trick play of the video data is being performed at the client device– see discussion in “response to arguments” and include, but are not limited to, see include, but are not limited to, figures 2-7, paragraphs 0052, 0081, 0083, 0085-0088, 0096-0097, 0100-0101, 0117, 0119, 0135).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify L’Heureux with the explicit teaching of media data comprises video data as taught by Liu in order to yield predictable result of providing video data and an enhanced trick-play modes to assist a viewer in more accurately providing requested video data (paragraph 0006).
Edlund or Mukaiyachi (hereinafter referred to as Edlund/Mukaiyachi) discloses receiving data to be transmitted from a client device and determining, based on a data size of the data, whether the data is request data or acknowledgement data notifying data has been received (Edlund: paragraphs 0053-0057; Mukaiyachi: figure 6, paragraphs 0092-0094, 0083, 0089).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further L’Heureux in view of Liu with the teaching of determining, based on a data size of the data, whether the data is a request data or acknowledgement data as taught by Edlund/Mukaiyachi in order to yield predictable result of distinguishing between data request and ACKs through their size (see Edlund: paragraph 0055; Mukaiyachi: paragraph 0092).
Regarding claim 6, limitations of a distribution system that correspond to the limitations of claim 1 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Particularly, L’Heureux in view of Liu and Edlund/Mukaiyachi discloses a distribution system (Hiruma: figures 1, 4; Liu: figures 1, 8) comprising:
a client terminal (client device);
a distribution server configured to distribute video data (delivery/streaming server); and
a data relay apparatus (repeater device or proxy server) according to claim 1. (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 1)
Regarding claim 7, limitations of a method that correspond to the limitations of claim 1 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Particularly, L’Heureux in view of Liu and Edlund/Mukaiyachi discloses a data relay method performed by a data relay apparatus arranged between a client terminal and a distribution server for distributing video data and configured to transmit video data distributed from the distribution server to the client terminal, the data relay method comprising:
a receiving operation comprising receiving uploaded data to be transmitted from the client terminal to the distribution server;
a first determination operation comprising determining, based on a data size of the uploaded data, whether the uploaded data is request data for requesting the video data or acknowledgement data for notifying that the video data has been received; and
a second determination operation comprising determining whether or not accelerated playback of the video data is being performed at the client terminal (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, limitations of a non-transitory computer-readable medium that correspond to the limitations of claim 1 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Particularly, L’Heureux in view of Liu and Edlund/Mukaiyachi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program for causing a computer, which is arranged between a client terminal and a distribution server for distributing video data and configured to transmit video data distributed from the distribution server to the client terminal, to execute:
a receiving process comprising receiving uploaded data to be transmitted from the client terminal to the distribution server;
a first determination process comprising determining, based on a data size of the uploaded data, whether or not the uploaded data is request data for requesting the video data or acknowledgement data for notifying that the video data has been received; and
a second determination process comprising determining whether or not accelerated playback of the video data is being performed at the client terminal (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, L’Heureux in view of Liu and Edlund/Mukaiyachi discloses the data relay apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine whether or not the accelerated playback of the video data is being performed at the client terminal based on a transmission interval of the determined request data (determine whether or not the accelerated playback, trick play mode, fast forward, 2x, 4x, etc. playback of the video data is being performed/selected at the client device based on a transmission interval associated with the byte range, selected portions, jump point, etc. of the determined request data with requested portion, requested byte range, requested jump point, etc. – see include, but are not limited to, Liu: figures 2-7, paragraphs 0052, 0081, 0083, 0085-0086, 0096-0097, 0100-0101, 0117, 0119, 0135 or see L’Heureux: figures 5-7, paragraph 0056).
Claims 2, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over L’Heureux et al. (US 20140258366) in view of Liu et al. (US 20200145701), Edlund (US 20140180366) or Mukaiyachi (US 20220070544) applied to claim 1 and/or further in view of Hiruma et al. (US 20180152490) .
Regarding claim 2, L’Heureux in view of Liu and Edlund/Mukaiyachi discloses the data relay apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to control a transmission of the video data to be transmitted to the client terminal based on a result of the determination in regard to the accelerated playback (see for example, L’Heureux: figures 5-7, paragraphs 0054-0056).
Liu or Mukaiyachi or Hiruma also discloses at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to control a transmission bitrate of the video data to be transmitted to the client terminal based on a result of the determination in regard to the accelerated playback (see include, but are not limited to, Hiruma: paragraphs 0067, 0083, figures 5-6; Liu: paragraphs 0051, 0127-0128, 0135; Mukaiyachi: paragraphs 0016-0017, 0021-0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify L’Heureux with the teaching of control a transmission bitrate of video data to be transmitted to client terminal as taught by Liu/Hiruma/Mukaiyachi in order to yield predictable result of controlling image quality and ABR video flowing in the network (see for example, Mukaiyachi: paragraph 0017; Hiruma: paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 4, L’Heureux in view of Liu, Edlund/Mukaiyachi and Hiruma a discloses the data relay apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine a playback speed of the accelerated playback performed at the client terminal when the second determination unit determines that the accelerated playback (trick play mode, jump point) of the video data is being performed at the client terminal (see include, but are not limited to, L'Heureux: figures 5-8, paragraphs 0055-0056; Hiruma: figures 5-6, Liu: figures 2-7, paragraphs 0080, 0083, 0100).
Regarding claim 5, L’Heureux in view of Liu, Edlund/Mukaiyachi and Hiruma discloses the data relay apparatus, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to control the transmission bitrate of the video data to be transmitted to the client terminal based on the result of the determination in regard to the playback speed of the accelerated playback (see include, but are not limited to, L’Heureux: figures 5-7, paragraphs 0055-0056;Hiruma: figures 5-6, paragraphs 0036-0037, 0065, 0083; Liu: figures 2-7, paragraphs 0051, 0127-0128).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ress et al. (US 20100030808) discloses multimedia architecture for audio and visual content (see also para. 0061).
Fickle et al. (US 9027063) discloses video on demand management system and method comprising providing acknowledgement of received content.
Edlund (US 20120221067) discloses determining, based on size of data, whether the data is request data or ACKs (paragraph 0089).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN SON PHI HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7295. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-6:30 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, NASSER M. GOODARZI can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/AN SON P HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
February 5, 2026