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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-5 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 08/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Stewart discloses a packager having a processing device configured to create a manifest comprising links to a plurality of chunks of a multimedia presentation, each chunk associated with a respectively different first network address by which each chunk may be accessed by a decoding device (see fig.1A and 1B; col.2,ll.7-43; discloses a content stream abstraction service 102 that receives content fragments and metadata for the content streams generated by two different packagers 104 and 106… The fragments of the content stream generated by packager 104 (represented by dashed box 110) have indices 1234, 1235, and 1236, having media time stamps of 00:00, 00:02, and 00:04, respectively. The fragments of the content stream generated by packager 106 (represented by dashed box 112) have indices 2260, 2261, and 2262, having media time stamps of 00:01, 00:03, and 00:05, respectively…), However, the Stewart discloses data within the manifest indicating the time base chunks referenced by the manifest not by filename. Therefore, the secondary reference Wu discloses where the processing device encodes the filename of the manifest as a name selected using a property received from the portion of the bitstream corresponding to the first chunk addressed in the manifest (see fig.1-4; col.7, ll.1-9 and col.6,ll.46-50; discloses service 102 encodes (using encoders 106) and packages (using packagers 108) the captured video for delivery as a plurality of live streams that include different quality-level and bitrate versions of the content (see col.1, ll.46-50)….manifest may have a filename of football.m3u8, while a thinned manifest may have a filename of football-thin-12000000.m3u8... When a client requests manifest updates for the most recently encoded fragments, the request, based on the filename, results in only updates for the thinned manifest being provided). 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 Stewart with the teaching as taught by Wu in order to provide concurrent streaming sessions to transition to a new streaming session.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,904,588 B1 to Stewart et al in view of US 11,102,260 B1 to Wu et al.
As to claim 1, Stewart discloses a packager having a processing device configured to create a manifest comprising links to a plurality of chunks of a multimedia presentation, each chunk associated with a respectively different first network address by which each chunk may be accessed by a decoding device (see fig.1A and 1B; col.2,ll.7-43, col.7,ll.37-45).
Stewart fails explicitly discloses where the processing device encodes the filename of the manifest as a name selected using a property received from the portion of the bitstream corresponding to the first chunk addressed in the manifest.
Wu discloses where the processing device encodes the filename of the manifest as a name selected using a property received from the portion of the bitstream corresponding to the first chunk addressed in the manifest (see fig.1-4; col.1, ll.45-50 and col.7, ll.1-9).
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 Stewart with the teaching as taught by Wu in order to provide concurrent streaming sessions to transition to a new streaming session.
As to claim 2, Stewart further discloses where the property is a PCR value (see fig.1A and 1B; col.2, ll.7-26).
As to claim 3, Stewart further discloses a second packager having a second processing device configured to create a redundant manifest comprising links to the plurality of chunks packaged by the first packager, where second processing device encodes the redundant manifest with a filename selected using the same property used by the first packager and received from the portion of the bitstream corresponding to the first chunk addressed in the redundant manifest (see fig.1B; col.2,ll.44-col.3.ll.3 and fig.2, el.214,216; col.ll.54-59 and see col.7,ll.37-45).
As to claim 4, Stewart further discloses where each of the packager and the second packager are configured to create a plurality of sequential ones of said manifest, each sequential manifest comprising links to respectively different subsets of said chunks (see fig. 1A and 1B; col.2, ll.7-29).
As to claim 5, Stewart further discloses synchronized with the redundant packager (see fig.1B; col.2, ll.44-col.3, ll.3).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MULUGETA MENGESHA whose telephone number is (469)295-9212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM ET.
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, Jefferey Harold can be reached on 571-2723011. 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.
MULUGETA MENGESHA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/Mulugeta Mengesha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
