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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 13 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
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 1-3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li Jun et. al. (CN 112738256 A – Machine Translation) in view of Lederer et al. (“Towards Peer-Assisted Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP”, May 2012). Hereinafter, referenced as Li and Lederer, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses method (20) for transmitting media files from at least one central server device (4) (e.g. central seed server) to a plurality of receiving devices (2) via a digital network (6) (Abstract, Page 3 figure 1; Peer cinema A1, B1, etc.),
wherein the plurality of receiving devices (2) each has a storage means (13) for storing media files (Page 3 figure 1; Peer cinema A1, B1, etc. storing cinema movies in as DCP files; page 4),
wherein at least one central control instance device (3) is provided, which has a storage means (33) for storing metadata of the media files to be transmitted (Page 4; seed file storage directory),
wherein the receiving devices (2) (Page 3 figure 1; Peer cinema A1, B1, etc.) download the metadata (e.g. seed file) of the media files from the central control instance device (3) at least prior to the transmission of media files (Page 4; sending the seed file to the requesting receiving peer to begin DCP file sharing over a p2p network),
and, based on the metadata, initiate a transmission of the media files to be transmitted from at least one of the central server devices (4) and/or from at least one other of the receiving devices (2) (Page 4; begin DCP file sharing over a p2p network),
wherein the media files are digital cinema packages (DCPs) (Page 3 figure 1; Peer cinema A1, B1, etc. storing cinema movies in as DCP files; page 4).
However, it is noted that Li is silent to explicitly disclose that the receiving devices (2) send status information to the central control instance device (3) in the course of transmitting the media files, which status information is used by the central control instance device (3) to update the metadata stored in the storage means (33) of the central control instance device (3),wherein the metadata comprises information about which of the media files are to be transmitted to which receiver or receivers (2).
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Lederer discloses that the receiving devices (2) send status information to the central control instance device (3) in the course of transmitting the media files (Page 4 second column, last two paragraphs; segment tracker), which status information is used by the central control instance device (3) to update the metadata (e.g. MPD) stored in the storage means (33) of the central control instance device (3) (Page 3, second column, Page 4 second column last two paragraphs; the MPD was modified to include the required information about peers having already downloaded some other parts of the currently consumed content. Wherein the tracker monitors the segment requests of each client with its IP address and a timestamps to store in a file or a database),
wherein the metadata comprises information about which of the media filed are to be transmitted to which receiver or receivers (2) (Page 4; HTTP Web Server and Segment-tracker; page 5; integration of a peer in the MPD, e.g. metadata, comprises the integration of only peers that have downloaded the segment in a given past time window, integrating clusters of clients with approximately the same bandwidth characteristics where only the clients within those groups are considered in the MPD generation, etc.).
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 Li by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Lederer, for the predictable result of implementing well-known peer to peer sharing techniques that allow the continues update status of each peer in the network and what content segments they are ready and available to share with their peers.
Regarding claim 2, Li and Lederer disclose the method (20) according to claim 1; moreover, Li discloses that the metadata (e.g. seed file) comprises further information taken from the following group:
-Information regarding the transfer priority of the media files to be transferred;
-Information regarding a transfer progress of a media file in transfer and/or a transfer speed of a media file in transfer and/or an estimated remaining transfer time for the transfer of a media file in transfer;
-Information regarding a queue position of a media file to be transferred and/or; -Information regarding the receiving devices (2) which participate in the procedure for the transmission of media files and/or are authorized to do so;
-Information relating to the receiving devices (2) which have stored at least parts of the media files to be transmitted in their storage means (13) (Page 4; sending the seed file to the requesting receiving peer to begin DCP file sharing over a p2p network),
-Information regarding the completion of the transfer of a media file;
-Information about which media files are to be deleted from which receivers (2).
Regarding claim 3, Li and Lederer disclose the method (20) according to claim 1; moreover, Li discloses that wherein the at least one central control instance device (3) can be controlled remotely via the digital network (6) by means of smartphones (7), tablet computers, computers or portable computers and/or the metadata located in the storage means (33) of the control instance device (3) can be read out remotely via the digital network (6) by means of smartphones (7), tablet computers, computers or portable computers (Page 9; computer equipment for formulating a DCP file transmission).
Regarding claim 13, Li and Lederer disclose the method (20) according to claim 1; moreover, Li discloses a Central server device (3), which is designed and set up in such a way that it can participate in a method according to claim 1 (Abstract, e.g. central seed server).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Lederer further in view of Rehan et al. (Pub No US 2015/0195328). Hereinafter, referenced as Rehan.
Regarding claim 4, Li and Lederer disclose the method (20) according to claim 1; moreover, Li discloses that the receiving devices (2) download the metadata of the media files from the central control instance device (3) (Abstract, e.g. central seed server).
However, it is noted that Li and Lederer are silent to explicitly disclose that the receiving devices (2) repeatedly download the metadata of the media files from the central control instance device (3), in particular also during an ongoing transmission of media files.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Rehan discloses that the receiving devices (2) repeatedly download the metadata of the media files from the central control instance device (3), in particular also during an ongoing transmission of media files (Paragraphs [0060] [0067]; clients may periodically request an updated version of the MPD file in a peer-assisted DASH setting).
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 Li and Lederer by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Rehan, for the predictable result of keeping up to date with the latest peer clients that may be potential available sources of content segments, further alleviating network traffic.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Lederer further in view of Del Val et al. (Pub No US 2005/0117580). Hereinafter, referenced as Del Val.
Regarding claim 5, Li and Lederer disclose the method (20) according to claim 1; moreover, Li discloses transmission of media files (Abstract, e.g. central seed server).
However, it is noted that Li and Lederer are silent to explicitly disclose that the receiving devices (2) prioritize the beginnings of the relevant media files during the transmission of media files, in particular for media files which are to be transmitted with a priority.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Del Val discloses that the receiving devices (2) prioritize the beginnings of the relevant media files during the transmission of media files, in particular for media files which are to be transmitted with a priority (Paragraphs [0046] [0047] figures 3-4; guaranteed Quality of Service QoS set tup delay when starting made play).
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 Li and Lederer by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Del Val, for the predictable result of assuring a quality-of-service QoS that provides a better viewing experience for the users.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Lederer further in view of Hao et al. (Pub No US 2012/0096121). Hereinafter, referenced as Hao.
Regarding claim 6, Li and Lederer disclose the method (20) according to claim 1; moreover, Li discloses that at least parts of the network (6) are a public network (6) (Page 9; internet network).
However, it is noted that Li and Lederer are silent to explicitly disclose that the data transmission preferably takes place at least partially by means of encrypted data transmission, particularly preferably via a virtual private network.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Hao discloses that the data transmission preferably takes place at least partially by means of encrypted data transmission, particularly preferably via a virtual private network (Paragraph [0049] figure 1; content provided may be encrypted, and distributed over virtual private networks; paragraph [0021]).
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 Li and Lederer by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Hao, for the predictable result of protecting the media content from piracy and avoiding unintended parties from having access to the protected distributed content.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Lederer further in view of Ramakrishnan et al. (Pub No US 2010/0100911). Hereinafter, referenced as Ramakrishnan.
Regarding claim 7, Li and Lederer disclose the method (20) according to claim 1; moreover, Lederer discloses the at least one central control instance device (3) and/or the at least one central server device (4) (Abstract, e.g. central seed server).
However, it is noted that Li and Lederer are silent to explicitly disclose that the at least one central control instance device (3) and/or the at least one central server device (4) is a redundant system, such that in the event of a partial failure of the respective system (3, 4), the functionality of the system (3, 4) can be taken over by its residual components.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Ramakrishnan discloses that the at least one central control instance device (3) and/or the at least one central server device (4) is a redundant system, such that in the event of a partial failure of the respective system (3, 4), the functionality of the system (3, 4) can be taken over by its residual components (Paragraph [0026] figure 5; a directory server may be a centralized directory server or a distributed directory server. The distributed directory server may include a plurality of redundant systems distributed throughout the IPTV network, such that the load is distributed across the plurality of redundant systems).
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 Li and Lederer by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Ramakrishnan, for the predictable result of distributing the load across the plurality of redundant systems in order to prevent loss of content (Ramakrishnan – paragraph [0026]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm EST..
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424