Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/638,606

Hierarchical Entity Grouping And Entity Reference In Media Content Delivery

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 17, 2024
Examiner
CHOKSHI, PINKAL R
Art Unit
2425
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
MediaTek Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
305 granted / 505 resolved
+2.4% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
534
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.6%
-35.4% vs TC avg
§103
59.6%
+19.6% vs TC avg
§102
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
§112
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 505 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/05/2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply in view of newly found reference Chen being used in the current rejection. See the new rejection below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 1-4, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 2021/0329351 to GIladi (“Giladi”) in view of US PG Pub 2019/0306519 to Chen (“Chen”). Regarding claim 1, “A media delivery method” reads on the method/system for managing content (abstract) disclosed by Giladi and represented in Fig. 1. As to “comprising: providing, at a streaming server, a media content to a streaming client, wherein the media content comprises a plurality of media tracks” Giladi discloses (¶0036, ¶0056) that the user device receives media content from the content service where the content service is implemented as one or more servers; (¶0020, ¶0041) the content includes content streams, content files, content segments etc. where content segments is stored as a complete track. As to “specifying, at the streaming server, a first group of entities for the media content, wherein each entity in the first group of entities is a media track, an item, a track group, or a child group of entities” Giladi discloses (¶0021, ¶0024, ¶0026) that the system generate a plurality of content segments by subdividing the content where the unique identifier is used to uniquely identify a determined set of content information; (¶0030) the content information comprises unique ID for the MPD to identify content segments associated with different presentations. As to “populating, at the streaming server, a first data structure that specifies one or more arrays of entity identifiers for the first group of entities, each array of entity identifiers comprising one or more identifiers of the entities in the first group” GIladi discloses (¶0026-¶0028) that the unique identifier is used to uniquely identify a determined set of content information (e.g., for generating a manifest file based on the set of content information); the unique identifier may be a separate identifier than the manifest identifier, the encoding identifier, the content set identifier, or the period identifier. Multiple unique identifiers may be used, such as at least two of the manifest identifier, the encoding identifier, the content set identifier, or the period identifier; the system may be configured use at least a unique identifier for a collection of content segments associated with a representation; (¶0028) the system is configured the add the content information by adding one or more identifiers to one of more of the plurality of content segments; the one or more identifiers may comprise one or more of the unique identifier, the manifest identifier, the period identifier, the content set identifier, or the encoding set identifier; (¶0033) the content information comprises identifiers (e.g., a list, array) of all related representations; (¶0085, ¶0087) generating the manifest file comprises adding, to the manifest file, data structure elements logically organizing the plurality of content segments for playback. As to “wherein each array of entity identifiers is associated with one reference type that describes the entities identified by the array of entity identifiers; and providing the first data structures to the streaming client” Giladi discloses (¶0076, ¶0084, claim 1) that the plurality of identifiers indicates different types of media presentation description fields (e.g., manifest fields) associated with playback of the content asset; (¶0060) the generated manifest file is provided to the user device which configures a user device to playout the content segments; (¶0004, ¶0079) the identifiers are used to determine a logical structure of the manifest file where the identifiers are used to determine which subsets of the plurality of content segments are associated with corresponding data structure elements (e.g., manifest data structure elements/group type), such as period elements (e.g., indicating scenes, ads), adaptation set elements (e.g., indicating video tracks, audio tracks), representation elements (e.g., indicating a specific encoding with a specific resolution, size, bandwidth); the data structure elements are interpreted as group types that are added to a shell manifest file to generate the manifest file for the plurality of content assets; (¶0026, ¶0030) the system uses a unique identifier for a collection of content segments associated with a representation; (¶0033, ¶0069-¶0071, ¶0094) content asset may be encoded into a first plurality of content segments for a first representation (e.g., 1080p resolution) and a second plurality of content segments for a second representation (e.g., 720p resolution) (e.g., as shown in FIG. 2). The initialization content segment for the first representation may comprise a first identifier (e.g., representation identifier) indicating the first representation. Giladi meets all the limitations of the claim except “wherein the first data structure is signaled in a timed metadata track without modifying the plurality of media tracks, and the timed metadata track is a track separated from the plurality of media tracks.” However, Chen discloses (¶0099) that the timed metadata tracked specified in ISOBMFF is used to carry the composition metadata where the timed metadata in tracks are different from the media tracks themselves; (claim 1) the device receives multimedia data with multiple tracks where the timed metadata track is used for the media track; (¶0101) using timed metadata tracks to provide composition metadata, provides more flexibility than existing techniques; the techniques can provide composition metadata without modifying the content of (e.g., primary and/or secondary) media tracks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Giladi’s system by using a separate timed metadata track without modifying the media tracks as taught by Chen in order to associate the timed metadata with the media track content (Chen - ¶0004). Regarding claim 2, “The media delivery method of claim 1, wherein different arrays of entity identifiers of the first group correspond to different reference types” Giladi discloses (¶0076, ¶0084) that the plurality of identifiers indicate different types of media presentation description fields (e.g., manifest fields) associated with playback of the content asset. Regarding claim 3, “The media delivery method of claim 1, wherein a first array of entity identifiers comprises identifiers for tracks, items, or groups of entities” Giladi discloses (¶0026) that the unique identifier is used to uniquely identify a determined set of content information (e.g., for generating a manifest file based on the set of content information). The unique identifier may comprise any of the identifiers described herein, such as the manifest identifier, the encoding identifier, the content set identifier, or the period identifier; (¶0028) The ingest service may be configured the add the content information by adding one or more identifiers to one of more of the plurality of content segments; the one or more identifiers may comprise one or more of the unique identifier, the manifest identifier, the period identifier, the content set identifier, or the encoding set identifier. Regarding claim 4, “The media delivery method of claim 1, wherein the first group of entities is a preselection specified by a Media Presentation Description (MPD)” Giladi discloses (¶0030) that the content information comprises globally unique identifier for the MPD to identify content segments associated with different presentations; (¶0079) for each of the one or more unique identifiers, a list of content segments, of the plurality of content segments, that are associated with the corresponding unique identifier may be determined; one or more data structure elements may be determined based on the list of content segments; the data structure elements may be data structure elements (e.g., or fields, tags) of a media presentation description. Regarding claim 9, “The media delivery method of claim 1, wherein the second data structure comprises a plurality of boxes that correspond to the plurality of groups of entities, wherein a box that corresponds to the first group of entities refers to the first data structure” Giladi discloses (¶0033, ¶0069-¶0071, ¶0094) content asset may be encoded into a first plurality of content segments for a first representation (e.g., 1080p resolution) and a second plurality of content segments for a second representation (e.g., 720p resolution) (e.g., as shown in FIG. 2). The initialization content segment for the first representation may comprise a first identifier (e.g., representation identifier) indicating the first representation and a second identifier indicating the second representation. Regarding claim 12, “The media delivery method of claim 1, wherein the media content is segmented for the transmission to the streaming client” GIladi discloses (¶0028) that the system is configured the add the content information by adding one or more identifiers to one of more of the plurality of content segments; the one or more identifiers may comprise one or more of the unique identifier, the manifest identifier, the period identifier, the content set identifier, or the encoding set identifier; (¶0033) the content information comprises identifiers (e.g., a list, array) of all related representations; (¶0085, ¶0087) generating the manifest file comprises adding, to the manifest file, data structure elements logically organizing the plurality of content segments for playback. Regarding claim 13, see rejection similar to claim 1. Regarding claim 14, see rejection similar to claim 1. Regarding claim 15, see rejection similar to claim 1. Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giladi in view of Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PG Pub 2021/0274241 to Cava (“Cava”). Regarding claim 5, combination of Giladi and Chen meets all the limitations of the claim except “The media delivery method of claim 1, wherein a first reference type for a first array of entity identifiers of the first group indicates that track and track group switching is allowed during playback of the media content.” However, Cava discloses (¶0100) that the media player is allowed to switch bitrates/content sources on a segment-by-segment basis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Giladi and Chen’s systems by allowing switching between tracks during playback of the media content as taught by Cava in order to compensate for network bandwidth variances and also infrastructure failures that may occur during playback of the video (Cava - ¶0100). Regarding claim 6, “The media delivery method of claim 1, wherein a first reference type for a first array of entity identifiers of the first group indicates that track and track group preselection is allowed only before playback and not during playback of the media content” Cava discloses (¶0021, ¶0042) that during the live streaming, the client resolves opportunities before reaching the opportunities to receive supplement content. Regarding claim 7, “The media delivery method of claim 1, wherein a first reference type of a first array of entity identifiers of the first group indicates that tracks, track groups and members of a child entity group are to be played back together” Cava discloses (¶0097) that the audio-video data is distributed to remote client devices over the network; the content server streams audio-video data continuously to a media player operating on the client device which plays the audio-video data concurrently with receiving the streaming data from the server. Furthermore, the Examiner takes the position that claim 7 is meant to further narrow claim 1. The limitation is optional and not positively required since the preceding limitation of claim 1 (each entity in the first group of entities is a media track, an item, a track group, or a child group of entities) requires to find only one of the four elements. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giladi in view of Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PG Pub 2022/0337898 to Dorogusker (“Dorogusker”). Regarding claim 10, combination of Giladi and Chen meets all the limitations of the claim except “The media delivery method of claim 1, wherein the group type specified for the first group of entities indicate that members of the first group of entities are to be played back together.” However, Dorogusker discloses (¶0065) that the host computing device transmits the live media stream and the playback control channel to the collaboration component which relays the live media stream and the playback control channel to the audience member client devices; the audience member client devices then playback the media content as instructed by the playback control channel and play the live media stream at the same time as instructed by the encoded markers in the playback control channel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Giladi and Chen’s systems by indicating that members of the group of entity playback content together as taught by Dorogusker so this way the audience member client devices are responsible for combining the media content that are played back with the live media stream (Dorogusker - ¶0065). Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giladi in view of Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 9,807,142 to Frojdh (“Frojdh”). Regarding claim 11, combination of Giladi and Chen meets all the limitations of the claim except “The media delivery method of claim 1, wherein the group type specified for the first group of entities includes unspecified, indicating that a presentation relationship among the members is not defined for playback.” However, Frojdh discloses (8:1-34) that the track includes samples of different temporal levels that provide different rates by allowing samples of one temporal level to be used independently of samples of lower temporal levels, the flexibility regarding the number of possible rates is increased and more alternative rates can be provided to achieve trick modes; the information indicating whether the temporal levels can be decoded independently without using samples from the groups of lower temporal levels can also be useful when only I frames are used to accomplish the trick modes. The I frames are divided into different temporal levels, e.g. every other I frame is on temporary level 1 and every other I frame is on temporal level 2. Since the I frames are not dependent on any other frames, the information according to the embodiments of the present invention indicating whether the temporal levels can be decoded independently without using samples from the groups of lower temporal levels temporal levels can be used to select a group of I frames for accomplishing a trick mode to provide a certain rate. Thus, although there is no dependence between the I frames the parameter originally intended for indicating dependence between temporal levels can be used for indicating that only a part of the I frames should be used which increases the flexibility. Based on this teaching, it is obvious that the flexible grouping is used where the relationship is not defined. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Giladi and Chen’s systems by specifying group type relationship as unspecified among the members as taught by Chen in order to allow flexible playback arrangements of the tracks. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINKAL R CHOKSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-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, BRIAN T PENDLETON can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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. /PINKAL R CHOKSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 17, 2024
Application Filed
May 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 05, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 12, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 20, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 20, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598332
PROCESSING OF MULTI-VIEW VIDEO
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593114
APPARATUS AND A METHOD FOR SIGNALING INFORMATION IN A CONTAINER FILE FORMAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593084
VIDEO STREAMING SYSTEM AND VIDEO STREAMING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581144
A METHOD OF PROVIDING A TIME-SYNCHRONIZED MULTI-STREAM DATA TRANSMISSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574599
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR REDACTING UNDESIRABLE DIGITAL CONTENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+29.6%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 505 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month