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 .
General Remarks
This communication is considered fully response to Applicant’s response filed 01/20/2026.
Application filed: 02/29/2024
Application PgPUB: 2025/0280048
Claims:
Claims 1-8 and 21-32 are pending.
Claims 1, 21 and 29 are independent.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-8 are elected.
IDS:
New IDS:
IDS filed 12/30/2025 has been considered.
Previous IDS:
IDS filed 04/18/2025 has been considered.
Continuity/Priority Data:
International Application No. PCT/US25/11287 filed 01/11/2025 claims priority to this Application.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7, 21-25, 27 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,893,303 B1 to Mitaru et al. (“Mitaru”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0008181 B1 to Schmelcher et al. (“Schmelcher”) in further U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0025836 A1 to Gupta (“Gupta”).
As to claim 1, Mitaru discloses:
a computing system comprising:
at least one hardware processor (Fig. 3, 304, Processing Unit);
at least one memory coupled to the at least one hardware processor (Fig. 3, 304, Processing Unit; 310, Memory); and
one or more computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to perform processing operations at a streaming client with respect to blocks comprising media samples to facilitate low-latency media streaming (col. 4 ll. 4-30 – Mitaru teaches using fragmentation and chunking to reduce latency (i.e., processing operations) at a media player), the operations comprising:
receiving a first data block, the first data block comprising a first sequence identifier number for a first media type and a first single discrete media sample of the first media type, wherein the first data block does not comprise a media sample of a media type other than the first media type (col. 7 ll. 29-37; col. 9 ll. 45-67, col. 10 ll. 1-32; col. 11 ll. 46-67 – Mitaru teaches a content delivery service 120 sends an encoded content segment which comprises a sequence number corresponding to the encoded content segment and time stamp information related to a relative time of the encoded segment; and the encoded content segment which utilizing encoded content fragments and encoded content chunks that are made up of a first portion; the chunk includes the type of data represented by the payload portion, durations of the samples in the pay load samples, timescale information for the media samples. Thus, the content delivery service 120 processes and sends the encoded segment chunk data to a user device/client/endpoint);
receiving a plurality of data blocks comprising respective single discrete media samples of the first media type, wherein the single discrete media samples of the first media type are ordered in a stream (col. 7 ll. 57-67 – Mitaru teaches using sequence numbers for encoded segments. Examiner Note: claim 6 states “an individual video segment of the two or more video segments is organized into a plurality of sequential fragments, wherein an individual fragment of the plurality of fragments is organized into a plurality of sequential chunks”);
Schmelcher discloses what Mitaru does not expressly disclose.
Schmelcher discloses:
receiving a second data block, the second data block comprising a second sequence identification number for a second media type and a first single discrete sample of the second media type, wherein the second data block does not comprise a media sample of a media type other than the second media type and the second media type is a media type other than the first media type (Fig. 3, ¶0014, ¶0045, ¶0046, ¶0064 – Schmelcher teaches sending a client data frames of different media types in a sequential consecutive order and the media segment includes frames with a number sequence (i.e., sequence number));
providing the first single discrete media sample of the first media type and the second discrete media sample of the second media type to a media player to be rendered at the streaming client, wherein the streaming client receives data blocks for a stream comprising the plurality of data blocks from multiple sources (Fig.1, Abstract, ¶0004, ¶0014 – Schmelcher teaches sending data frames of different media types to a client for playback on a media player) Examiner Note: claims 1 and 2 state sending different media frame of different types (i.e., image, audio) to client device from multiple servers (i.e, media player)).
Mitaru and Schmelcher are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to media streaming.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate different media types from different sources as discussed in Schmelcher with computing system as discussed in Mitaru by adding the functionality of Schmelcher to the system/method of Mitaru in order to synchronize independently encoded media streams (Schmelcher, ¶0013).
Gupta discloses what Mitaru and Schmelcher do not expressly disclose.
Gupta discloses:
determining that a consecutive number of discrete media samples of the first media type satisfies a threshold (Abstract, ¶0009, ¶0014, ¶0015, ¶0024 – Gupta teaches splicing in advertising content (i.e., data type 2) with another segment (i.e, data type 1) and uses a splice-out point and duration attribute (i.e., threshold) to determine splice-out and splice-in points);
based on determining that a consecutive number of discrete media samples of the first media type satisfies a threshold, inserting the first discrete sample of the second media type between consecutive media samples of the first media type in the stream (Abstract, ¶0009, ¶0014, ¶0015, ¶0024 – Gupta teaches splicing in advertising content (i.e., data type 2) with another segment (i.e, data type 1) and uses a splice-out point and duration attribute (i.e., threshold) to determine splice-out and splice-in points);
Mitaru, Schmelcher and Gupta are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to media streaming.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate media splicing as discussed in Gupta with different media types from different sources as discussed in Schmelcher with computing system as discussed in Mitaru by adding the functionality of Gupta to the system/method of Mitaru and Schmelcher in order to provide splicing for live streaming media (Gupta, ¶0008).
As to claim 2, Mitaru, Schmelcher and Gupta discloses:
computing system of claim 1, and
Schmelcher discloses:
wherein the first data block is received from a first source of the multiple sources and the second data block is received from a second source of the multiple sources, wherein the second source is different than the first source (Fig.1, Abstract, ¶0004, ¶0014 – Schmelcher teaches sending data frames of different media types to a client for playback on a media player) Examiner Note: claims 1 and 2 state sending different media frame of different types (i.e., image, audio) to client device from multiple servers (i.e, media player)).
As to claim 3, Mitaru, Schmelcher and Gupta discloses:
computing system of claim 1, and
Gupta discloses:
wherein the first data block and the second data block are not received in response to specific requests for the first data block or the second data block (Abstract, ¶0009, ¶0014, ¶0015, ¶0024 – Gupta teaches splicing in advertising content (i.e., data type 2) with another segment (i.e, data type 1) and uses a splice-out point and duration attribute (i.e., threshold) to determine splice-out and splice-in points. Examiner Note: the advertising segments spliced in (i.e., first and second data blocks) would not be specifically requested by the client).
As to claim 4, Mitaru, Schmelcher and Gupta discloses:
computing system of claim 1, and
Mitaru discloses:
wherein the first data block and the second data block do not comprise codec configuration information useable by the media player to render the first single discrete sample of the first media type or the first single discrete sample of the second media type (Mitaru is silent as to its usage of codec information and therefore meets the metes and bounds of this claim).
As to claim 5, Mitaru, Schmelcher and Gupta discloses:
computing system of claim 1, and
Mitaru discloses:
wherein the first data block comprises a first value for a block type identifier, the first value indicating that the first data block comprises a sample of the first media type, and the second data block comprises a second value for the block type identifier, the second value indicating that the second data block comprises a sample of the second media type, wherein the second value is different than the first value (col. 9 ll. 60-67, col. 10 ll. 1-20 – Mitaru teaches that chunks included information that identifies the type of data presented in the payload (i.e., first and second value indicating the first and second media type)).
As to claim 7, Mitaru, Schmelcher and Gupta discloses:
computing system of claim 1, and
Mitaru discloses:
wherein the first data block comprises a first timestamp for the first single discrete media sample of the first media type and the second data block comprises a second timestamp for the first single discrete media sample of the second media type (col. 7 ll. 62-67 – Mitaru teaches synchronization information is generated and utilized by the encoders, such as sequence numbers corresponding to the set of encoded segments, time stamp information related to a relative time of the encoded segments or from which relative time of encoded segments will be based), the operations further comprising:
during rendering at the client device, using the first timestamp and the second timestamp to synchronize rendering of the first single discrete media sample of the first media type and the first single discrete media sample of the second media type (col. 7 ll. 62-67 – Mitaru teaches synchronization information is generated and utilized by the encoders, such as sequence numbers corresponding to the set of encoded segments, time stamp information related to a relative time of the encoded segments or from which relative time of encoded segments will be based).
As to claim 21, similar rejection as claim 1.
As to claim 22, similar rejection as claim 2.
As to claim 23, similar rejection as claim 3.
As to claim 24, similar rejection as claim 4.
As to claim 25, similar rejection as claim 5.
As to claim 27, similar rejection as claim 7.
As to claim 29, similar rejection as claim 1.
As to claim 30, similar rejection as claim 2.
As to claim 31, similar rejection as claim 3.
As to claim 32, similar rejection as claim 4.
Claims 6 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,893,303 B1 to Mitaru et al. (“Mitaru”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0008181 B1 to Schmelcher et al. (“Schmelcher”) in further U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0025836 A1 to Gupta (“Gupta”) in further U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0188790 A1 to Hunter (“Hunter”).
As to claim 6, Mitaru, Schmelcher and Gupta discloses:
computing system of claim 1, and
Hunter discloses what Mitaru, Schmelcher and Gupta do not expressly disclose.
Hunter discloses:
the operations further comprising:
receiving a third data block, the third data block comprising a mapping of a GUID for an encryption key to an identifier of a local encryption key, wherein the third data block does not comprise a media sample (Figs. 2-4, ¶0049, ¶0085 – Hunter teaches Content management system 106 can implement AES encryption, for example, to encrypt the GUID with a key derived using bcrypt on the relevant encryption key and the system can identify a communication associated with a GUID for a content item 1102. The system can detect a content item type for the content item 1104. Then the system can encrypt the communication using an encryption key based on the content item type 1106, and transmit the encrypted communication 1108.).
Mitaru, Schmelcher, Gupta and Hunter are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to media streaming.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate GUID as discussed in Hunter with media splicing as discussed in Gupta with different media types from different sources as discussed in Schmelcher with computing system as discussed in Mitaru by adding the functionality of Hunter to the system/method of Mitaru, Schmelcher and Gupta in order to allow for a richer set of functionality for document editing and sharing (Hunter, ¶0005).
As to claim 26, similar rejection as claim 6.
Claims 8 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,893,303 B1 to Mitaru et al. (“Mitaru”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0008181 B1 to Schmelcher et al. (“Schmelcher”) in further U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0025836 A1 to Gupta (“Gupta”) in further U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0034029 A1 to Fang et al. (“Fang”).
As to claim 8, Mitaru, Schmelcher and Gupta discloses:
computing system of claim 1, and
Fang discloses what Mitaru, Schmelcher and Gupta do not expressly disclose.
Fang discloses:
wherein the first single discrete media sample of the first media type is rendered at the streaming client without decoding the first single discrete media sample of the first media type (¶0026 – Fang teaches the ability to directly render the digital audio/video signals without intermediate decoding by the audio/video decoder module).
Mitaru, Schmelcher, Gupta and Fang are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to media streaming.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate rendering methods as discussed in Fang with media splicing as discussed in Gupta with different media types from different sources as discussed in Schmelcher with computing system as discussed in Mitaru by adding the functionality of Fang to the system/method of Mitaru, Schmelcher and Gupta in order to demonstrate that media can be rendered without decoding (Fang, ¶0026).
As to claim 28, similar rejection as claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR A ELFERVIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (10:00 AM CST) - Friday (4:00 PM CST).
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
/TAYLOR A ELFERVIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445