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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are pending and examined in the current office action. Claims 21-27 have been newly introduced. Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 21, applicant argues that Randall does not teach “supplemental content that is based on a data profile associated with the content, wherein the supplemental content is configured to obfuscate the data profile and an information file configured to cause the media device to process the content and supplemental content”, remarks pages 8-10.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Randall discloses a playback device 124 sending a content request to remote source 130; wherein the remote source 130 selects a bit rate profile that meets the network conditions; paragraph [0333] figure 1. The examiner notes that the selected bit rate profile reasonably reads on the claimed data profile associated with the content.
Moreover, Randall points out that null packets are inserted in order to conform with the template stream 2712 to output the stream implanting the selected data profile; paragraph [0246] figures 26-27. Randall further recites that null data identification, e.g. bits, constant value, etc., is also distributed so that the null data can be detected and ignored by the playback device 124 in order to correctly decode the stream; paragraph [0246] figures 26-27.
While the examiner agrees with the applicant that Randall inserts null packets to provide padding and compensate for differences in the template stream, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the null data identification information needed by a requesting client to correctly decode the stream by ignoring the identified null packets essentially “obfuscates” the data profile. Since the null data identification information described by Randall is effectively required to correctly process the stream. Therefore, the teachings of Randall clearly disclose the claimed elements of claims 1, 15 and 21 as described in the office action.
The examiner notes that the teachings of Randall align with the disclosure of the instant application which captures an obfuscator 111 that processes a bitrate profile that comprises one or more null packets to create artificial troughs; paragraph [0023] of the originally filed specification. Also, the current specification shows that the information file causes the client device to ignore the one or more null packets, paragraph [0027], which is similar to the teachings of the Randall reference as described in the previous office action. In order to advance prosecution, the examiner suggests implementing the options discussed during the last interview.
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 (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 15-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Randall (Pub No US 2012/0114302). Hereinafter, referenced as Randall.
Regarding claim 1, Randall discloses a method comprising:
receiving, from a media device (e.g. playback device 124), a request for content (Paragraph [0333] figure 1; playback device 124 issues content request to remote source 130);
and sending, to the media device, the content (Paragraph [0333] figure 1; requested content);
supplemental content (e.g. null packets) that is based on a data profile associated with the content (Paragraph [0333] figure 1; selecting a bit rate profile that meets the network conditions), wherein the supplemental content is configured to obfuscate the data profile (Paragraph [0246] figures 26-27; null data identification, e.g. bits, constant value, etc., so that the null data can be detected and ignored by the playback device 124. Wherein since the null packets are inserted in order to conform with the template stream 2712 to output the stream at the highest expected bit rate, the actual bit rate profile, e.g. data profile, is inaccurate, i.e. obfuscated; paragraphs [0247] [0271]),
and an information file (e.g. null data identification) configured to cause the media device to process the content and supplemental content (Paragraphs [0220] [0245] [0246] figures 26-27; distribute request content including null packets padding bits to maintain timing and satisfy buffering requirements).
Regarding claim 2, Randall discloses the method of claim 1; moreover, Randall discloses causing the media device to process one or more packets of content and one or more packets of supplemental content according to the information file (Paragraph [0246] figures 26-27; null data identification, e.g. bits, constant value, etc., so that the null data can be detected and ignored by the playback device 124).
Regarding claim 3, Randall discloses the method of claim 2; moreover, Randall discloses that causing the media device to process the one or more packets of content and the one or more packets of supplemental content according to the information file comprises causing the media device to: output the one or more first packets of content; and not output the one or more second packets of content supplemental content (Paragraph [0246] figures 26-27; null data identification, e.g. bits, constant value, etc., so that the null data can be detected and ignored by the playback device 124).
Regarding claim 4, Randall discloses the method of claim 1; moreover, Randall discloses that the supplemental content comprises one or more null packets and wherein the media device is configured to ignore, based on the information file, the one or more null packets (Paragraph [0246] figures 26-27; null data identification, e.g. bits, constant value, etc., so that the null data can be detected and ignored by the playback device 124).
Regarding claim 5, Randall discloses the method of claim 1; moreover, Randall discloses that sending the supplemental content and the information file comprises:
determining, based on the content, a bitrate profile associated with the content (Paragraph [0333] figure 1; selecting a bit rate profile that meets the network conditions);
and determining, based on the bitrate profile, an enhanced bitrate profile, wherein the enhanced bitrate profile is configured to obfuscate the bitrate profile associated with the content (Paragraph [0246] figures 26-27; null data identification, e.g. bits, constant value, etc., so that the null data can be detected and ignored by the playback device 124. Wherein since the null packets are inserted in order to conform with the template stream 2712 to output the stream at the highest expected bit rate, the actual bit rate profile, e.g. data profile, is inaccurate, i.e. obfuscated; paragraphs [0247] [0271]).
Regarding claim 7, Randall discloses the method of claim 1; moreover, Randall discloses determining, based on a random number and a bitrate profile associated with the content, an amount of the supplemental content to send to the media device (Paragraphs [0247] [0271]; null packets needed to insert in order to conform with the template stream 2712 to output the stream at the highest expected bit rate, the actual bit rate profile, e.g. data profile, is inaccurate, i.e. obfuscated).
Regarding claim 15, Randall discloses a method comprising:
receiving, from a content source, based on a request for content from a media device, content (Paragraph [0333] figure 1; playback device 124 issues content request to remote source 130);
determining, based on the content, a data profile associated with the content (Paragraph [0333] figure 1; selecting a bit rate profile that meets the network conditions);
determining, based on the data profile associated with the content, an enhanced data profile associated with supplemental content (e.g. null packets) and an information file associated with the supplemental content (Paragraph [0246] figures 26-27; null data identification, e.g. bits, constant value, etc., so that the null data can be detected and ignored by the playback device 124);
and sending, to the media device (e.g. playback device 124), the content, the information file (e.g. null data identification), and, based on the enhanced data profile, the supplemental content (Paragraphs [0220] [0245] [0246] figures 26-27; distribute request content including null packets padding bits to maintain timing and satisfy buffering requirements).
Regarding claim 16, Randall discloses the method of claim 15; moreover, Randall discloses that the supplemental content comprises one or more null packets (e.g. null packets) and wherein the enhanced data profile is configured to obfuscate the data profile associated with the content (Paragraph [0246] figures 26-27; null data identification, e.g. bits, constant value, etc., so that the null data can be detected and ignored by the playback device 124. Wherein since the null packets are inserted in order to conform with the template stream 2712 to output the stream at the highest expected bit rate, the actual bit rate profile, e.g. data profile, is inaccurate, i.e. obfuscated; paragraphs [0247] [0271]).
Regarding claim 17, Randall discloses the method of claim 15; moreover, Randall discloses that the information file is configured to cause the media device to ignore the supplemental content (Paragraph [0246] figures 26-27; null data identification, e.g. bits, constant value, etc., so that the null data can be detected and ignored by the playback device 124).
Regarding claim 18, Randall discloses the method of claim 15; moreover, Randall discloses that receiving the supplemental content comprises receiving the supplemental content in a data stream comprising the content (Paragraphs [0220] [0245] [0246] figures 26-27; distribute request content including null packets).
Regarding claim 19, Randall discloses the method of claim 15; moreover, Randall discloses that determining the supplemental content comprises determining a difference between the data profile and a constant bitrate (Paragraph [0245]; null packets 2727 provide padding bits between packets 2724 of content stream 2714 to, in part, compensate for the differences in the content stream 2714 versus the template stream 2712).
Regarding claim 20, Randall discloses the method of claim 15; moreover, Randall discloses determining a difference between the data profile and a constant bitrate; and determining, based on the different, an amount of supplemental content to send to the media device (Paragraph [0245]; null packets 2727 provide padding bits between packets 2724 of content stream 2714 to, in part, compensate for the differences in the content stream 2714 versus the template stream 2712).
Regarding claim 21, Randall discloses all the limitations of claim 21; therefore, claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 1 and 15.
Regarding claim 22, Randall discloses all the limitations of claim 22; therefore, claim 22 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 2.
Regarding claim 23, Randall discloses all the limitations of claim 23; therefore, claim 23 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 3.
Regarding claim 24, Randall discloses all the limitations of claim 24; therefore, claim 24 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 4.
Regarding claim 25, Randall discloses all the limitations of claim 25; therefore, claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 5.
Regarding claim 27, Randall discloses all the limitations of claim 27; therefore, claim 27 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 7.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm EST..
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights