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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 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.
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.3-4; 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 a 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
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
Prosecution Insights