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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to amendment filed 9/29/2025, where Applicant amended the claims. Claims 2-21 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments filed 9/29/25, with respect to the previous rejections have been fully considered, change the scope of the claims and are persuasive thus overcoming the previous 102 rejections. However, upon further consideration a new grounds of rejection is made based on Mukherjee in view of Yoneda.
The 101 rejection of claims 9-21 is overcome and therefore withdrawn.
The previous Double Patenting rejections are rejections are withdrawn in view of the Terminal Disclaimer.
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 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 1,3,5,8,9,11,14,15,16,19-21 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee (US Publication 20040010614) in view of Yoneda et al (US Publication 20110110260).
In reference to claim 1, Mukherjee teaches a method for providing media content within a media distribution network (see at least Abstract), wherein the media distribution network comprises a core network with at least one core storage unit, a first edge network coupled to one or more first clients, and a second edge network coupled to one or more second clients, wherein the method comprises:
transforming source media content into an interim format, thereby providing transformed content; (see at least ¶ 59 lines 6-15, which teaches transforming media content into encoded/transformed interim data)
storing the transformed content on the at least one core storage unit; (see at least ¶ 75 lines 4-8 and ¶ 78 lines 1-9, which teaches a media source storing the encoded data)
receiving feedback data from at least one of the group consisting of one or more clients, a rendering environment of the one or more clients, one or more components within the media distribution network, and combinations thereof, wherein the feedback data includes first feedback data including first information indicative of a first characteristic of a first rendering environment of the one or more first clients (see at least Fig 9 & ¶ 75 lines 11-15, which teaches receiving feedback/attribute data from one or more client destinations the data providing information indicative of attributes of the clients) and second feedback data including second information indicative of a second characteristic of a second rendering environment of the one or more second clients, wherein the first feedback data is different than the second feedback data; (see at least Fig 9 & ¶ 75 lines 11-15, which teaches receiving different feedback/attribute data from each client destination the data providing information indicative of attributes of the clients);
encoding the transformed content into first intermediate coded content based on the first feedback data; encoding the transformed content into second intermediate coded content based on the second feedback data; (see at least ¶ 75 lines 14-20 and ¶ 76 lines 10-22, which teaches encoding the formatted data based on the attribute data)
sending the first intermediate coded content via the core network to the first edge network; and sending the second intermediate coded content via the core network to the second edge network (see at least Fig 8 #81 & Fig 9 and ¶ 75-76, which teaches sending the encoded data via the network to the destination).
Mukherjee fails to explicitly teach encoding the transformed content into first intermediate coded content based on the first feedback data by adjusting, via network coding or forward error correction (FEC) coding, a redundancy of the transformed content to generate the first intermediate coded content based on the first information indicative of the first characteristic of the first rendering environment of the one or more first clients; and encoding the transformed content into second intermediate coded content based on the second feedback data by adjusting, via network coding or FEC coding, the redundancy of the transformed content to generate the second intermediate coded content based on the second information indicative of the second characteristic of the second rendering environment of the one or more second clients. However, Yoneda teaches optimizing media streaming and packet recovery, and discloses encoding packets of a media stream in an intermediary unit, the packet is encoded by adjusting the network coding rate and FEC redundancy based on feedback data/report of the receiving node; and each packet is adjusted based on the receiving node feedback (see Yoneda, at least Background & ¶s 145-150). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mukherjee based on the teachings of Yoneda for the purpose of optimizing media packet recovery based on receiving node and network conditions.
In reference to claim 3, Mukherjee teaches encoding data differently according to the respective destination attributes (see at least ¶ 76 lines 15-21).
In reference to claim 5, Mukherjee teaches encoding data differently according to the respective destination attributes (see at least ¶ 75 lines 4-14 & ¶ 76 lines 7-21)
In reference to claim 8, Mukherjee teaches feedback attributes of the destination including noise level, destination preferences, size, resolution, and behavior (see at least ¶s 34,43,44,60,62)
Claims 9,11,14,15,16,19-21 correspond to claim 1,3,5,8 and are slight variations thereof. Therefore claims 9,11,14,15,16,19-21 are rejected based upon the same rationale as given above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee (US Publication 20040010614) in view of Yoneda et al (US Publication 20110110260) in view of Musser et al (US Publication 20130308699).
In reference to claim 4, Mukherjee fails to explicitly teach further comprising receiving a request for the source media content from the one or more first clients and from the one or more second clients. However, Musser teaches media content delivery in a content distribution network and discloses receiving a request from a client device for content data (see Musser, at least Abstract & ¶ 32 lines 1-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mukherjee based on the teachings of Musser for the purpose of servicing client request upon demand for media content.
Claims 6,7,12,13,17,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee (US Publication 20040010614) in view of Yoneda et al (US Publication 20110110260) in view of Bennet (US Publication 20100050225).
In reference to claim 6, Mukherjee teaches the characteristics/attributes as mentioned in claim 8 above. Mukherjee fails to explicitly teach each of its limitations regarding the first feedback data and the second feedback data. However, Bennet teaches data adaptation to suit recipient devices, and discloses characteristics/requirements including bandwidth, error rates, and transmission path (see Bennet, at least Abstract & ¶s 32-34). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mukherjee based on the teachings of Bennet for the purpose of data adaptation that optimality suits the media/data recipients.
In reference to claim 7, Mukherjee teaches the characteristics/attributes as mentioned in claim 8 above. Mukherjee fails to explicitly teach each of its limitations regarding the first feedback data and the second feedback data. However, Bennet teaches data adaptation to suit recipient devices, and discloses characteristics/requirements including audio and video characteristics (see Bennet, at least Abstract & ¶s 32-34). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mukherjee based on the teachings of Bennet for the purpose of data adaptation that optimality suits the media/data recipients.
Claims 12,13,17,18 correspond to claims 6,7 and are slight variations thereof. Therefore claims 12,13,17,18 are rejected based upon the same rationale as given above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Forms 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/RAMY M OSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
October 31, 2025