Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 10 that Glasser does not teach (i) "based at least on the determination, cause creation of a second data channel," (ii) "de-encapsulating the data packets from a first media file container format" and "subsequently re-encapsulating the data packets to a second media file container format," or (iii) "causing transmission of the data packets in the second media file container format...via the second data channel. To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. Glasser teaches that a determination is made as whether to continue receiving the content as a multicast or as a unicast (608 determination step; 610 unicast; 614 multicast; figure 6) since the client is receiving the content as a multicast and then change to a multicast a new channel is created and all the claim limitations are met.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 15 that Glasser's operative decision logic is not a determination "whether a multicast stream comprising the packetized digitally rendered content exists," but rather whether the number of requests exceeds a threshold such that multicast content delivery can be more efficient than unicast delivery. How is determined is the multicast exist or not is irrelevant to the claim the claim calls for “determining, at the edge streaming apparatus, whether a multicast stream comprising the packetized digitally rendered content exists” and this is clearly taught by Glasser since the reference discloses determining if the multicast exist based on the number of people requesting the content (figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3), meeting the claim language.
In response to applicant's arguments (claim 22) against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. 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 should note that Ramsdell was simply brought in to teach using an advanced video encoding format for the benefit of having a faster response. All other limitations are taught by Glasser as cited in the office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 10-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. US 9,402,107.
Claims 10-29 of the instant application are anticipated by patent claims 1-21 in that claims 1-21 of the patent contains all the limitations of claims 10-29 of the instant application. Claims 10-29 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 10-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,924,521.
Claims 10-29 of the instant application are anticipated by patent claims 1-21 in that claims 1-21 of the patent contains all the limitations of claims 10-29 of the instant application. Claims 10-29 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claim 10, 12, 15, 17-18 and 20-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Glasser et al., US 8,656,042.
Regarding claim 10, Glasser discloses a computer readable apparatus comprising a non-transitory storage medium, the non-transitory storage medium comprising at least one computer program having a plurality of instructions, the plurality of instructions configured to, when executed on a digital processing apparatus, cause a computerized edge streaming apparatus to:
receive data representative of a request for data packets, the request originating from a computerized client device of a data network, the data packets transmitted over a first data channel and belonging to a first media stream (figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 2, line 60 to col. 3, line 20);
determine that at least one attribute of the data packets meets a prescribed criterion; based at least on the determination, cause creation of a second data channel (figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3);
de-encapsulate the data packets from a first media file container format, and subsequently re-encapsulate the data packets to a second media file container format (figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3); and
cause transmission of the data packets in the second media file container format to the computerized client device via the second data channel (figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3).
Regarding claim 12, Glasser discloses the computer readable apparatus of Claim 10, wherein the determination that the at least one attribute of the data packets meets the prescribed criterion comprises an evaluation of the first media stream, the evaluation comprising identification of a transport protocol utilized by the first media stream, and determination of whether the transport protocol is appropriate for delivery of the data packets to the computerized client device (figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3).
Regarding claim 15, Glasser discloses a computerized method providing digitally rendered content over a managed content distribution network having a plurality of users associated therewith, the computerized method comprising:
receiving, at an edge streaming apparatus disposed at an edge of the managed content distribution network, data representative of a request from a computerized client device in data communication with the managed content distribution network, the data representative of the request indicating particular digitally rendered content, the digitally rendered content packetized using at least an Internet Protocol (IP) (figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3);
determining, at the edge streaming apparatus, whether a multicast stream comprising the packetized digitally rendered content exists (figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3); and
based on the determining, causing delivery of the packetized digitally rendered content from the edge streaming apparatus to the computerized client device (figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3).
Regarding claim 17, Glasser discloses the computerized method of Claim 15, wherein:
causing the computerized client device to join the multicast stream (figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3);
processing a stream of the packetized digitally rendered content to render the multicast packetized digitally rendered content suitable for use by the computerized client device, the processing of the stream comprises encapsulating the packetized digitally rendered content in an advanced video encoding format (figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3); and
the causing of the delivery of the packetized digitally rendered content comprises causing delivery of the packetized digitally rendered content in the advanced video encoding format over Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) to an IP-enabled client device (figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3).
Regarding claim 18, Glasser discloses the computerized method of Claim 17, wherein the encapsulating of the packetized digitally rendered content in the advanced video encoding format comprises causing the edge streaming apparatus to de-encapsulate the packetized digitally rendered content from a first media file container format, and subsequently re-encapsulate the packetized digitally rendered content to a second media file container format (figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3).
Regarding claim 20, Glasser discloses the computerized method of Claim 15, further comprising determining, subsequent to the causing delivery, that the multicast stream is no longer appropriate; wherein the determining that the multicast stream is no longer appropriate is based at least on receipt of data indicating a reduction in available network multicast bandwidth (col. 3, line 37 to col. 4, line 33).
Regarding claim 21, Glasser discloses the computerized method of Claim 15, further comprising determining, subsequent to the causing delivery, that the multicast stream is no longer appropriate; wherein the determining that the multicast stream is no longer appropriate is based at least on data received from a network entity of the managed content distribution network indicating that the multicast will no longer be supported (col. 3, line 37 to col. 4, line 33).
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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 22-24, 26 and 28-29 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Glasser et al., US 8,656,042 in view of Ramsdell et al., US 2011/0035772.
Regarding claim 22, Glasser discloses a computerized method providing digitally rendered content over a network having a plurality of users associated therewith, the computerized method comprising:
receiving data representative of a request from a computerized client device in data communication with the network, the data representative of the request indicating particular digitally rendered content, the digitally rendered content packetized using at least an Internet Protocol (IP) (figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 2, line 60 to col. 3, line 20);
determining that a multicast stream comprising the packetized digitally rendered content is currently being delivered via at least one transport stream (figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3);
processing at least one stream of the packetized digitally rendered content of the at least one transport stream to render multicast packetized digitally rendered content suitable for use by the computerized client device, the processing of the at least one stream comprises encapsulating the packetized digitally rendered content in a video encoding format (figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3); and
based on the determining, causing delivery of the packetized digitally rendered content to the computerized client device (figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3).
Glasser is silent about using an advanced video encoding format.
In an analogous art, Ramsdell discloses using an advanced video encoding format (paragraph 25-40 and 137).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Glasser’s method with the teachings of Ramsdell. The motivation would have been to being to have a faster response for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Regarding claim 23, Glasser and Ramsdell disclose the computerized method of Claim 22, wherein the encapsulating the packetized digitally rendered content in the advanced video encoding format comprises causing an edge streaming apparatus to de-encapsulate the packetized digitally rendered content from a first media file container format, and subsequently re-encapsulate the packetized digitally rendered content to a second media file container format (Glasser figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3).
Regarding claim 24, Glasser and Ramsdell discloses the computerized method of Claim 23, wherein: the network comprises a managed content distribution network; and the edge streaming apparatus is disposed at an edge of the managed content distribution network (Glasser figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3).
Regarding claim 26, Glasser and Ramsdell discloses the computerized method of Claim 22, further comprising causing the computerized client device to join the multicast stream; wherein the causing of the delivery of the packetized digitally rendered content comprises causing delivery of the packetized digitally rendered content in the advanced video encoding format over Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) to an IP-enabled client device (Glasser figures 1-3 and 5-6, col. 6, line 34 to col. 8, line 3).
Regarding claim 28, Glasser and Ramsdell discloses the computerized method of Claim 22, further comprising determining, subsequent to the causing delivery, that the multicast stream is no longer appropriate; wherein the determining that the multicast stream is no longer appropriate is based at least on receipt of data indicating a reduction in available network multicast bandwidth (Glasser col. 3, line 37 to col. 4, line 33).
Regarding claim 29, Glasser and Ramsdell discloses the computerized method of Claim 22, further comprising determining, subsequent to the causing delivery, that the multicast stream is no longer appropriate; wherein the determining that the multicast stream is no longer appropriate is based at least on data received from a network entity of a managed content distribution network indicating that the multicast stream will no longer be supported (Glasser col. 3, line 37 to col. 4, line 33).
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 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, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. 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.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights