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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/23/2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 3/20/2026 has been entered and approved. Therefore, the double patenting rejections of 11/21/2025 are withdrawn.
Claim Status
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are pending in this Office Action.
Claim 11 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 19, and 20 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Lewis does not expressly or inherently describe at least, for example, the features of, "the dynamic creation of the virtual manifest comprises determining a target length or a target size of one or more segments of an original stream of data from the content based on the one or more first parameters,".
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Applicant’s arguments at page 2-3, Applicant agrees that Lewis teaches generating a dynamic manifest file. Applicant further agrees that Lewis teaches segment cutting or trimming and that Lewis further teaches segment resizing. However, Applicant takes the position that the cutting, trimming, and resizing are not based on the one or more first parameters. In response, the Examiner notes the claim as written requires either a target length or a target size of one segment to be determined based on one first parameter. The claim does not recite how the one parameter is determined. The claim further does not recite how the target length or target size are determined. The claim further does not recite how the determining is based on the first parameter. In view of this, Lewis teaches first receiving parameters from the client device 150 (par. 17 and 36-37). The parameters are then evaluated against a plurality of rules to dynamically generate a manifest file, including cutting, cropping, trimming, and/or resizing the video segments (par. 17, 26-30, 38-39, Fig. 1-4). Therefore, it is clear that Lewis teaches each and every element required by claims 1, 19, and 20 under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1, lines 4-5, and the corresponding lines in claims 19 and 20, “the first one or more parameters” should be replaced with “the one or more first parameters” to keep terminology consistent with the rest of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 8, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewis et al. (US 2012/0047542).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, Lewis teaches: A method, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and an apparatus [(abstract)] comprising:
receiving a request for delivery of content from a user device [receiving a request to provide a first video content from client device 150 (par. 17 and 36, Fig. 4)]
determining one or more first parameters for the user device based on the request [parameters from the client device request (par. 17 and 37, Fig. 4)]
dynamically creating a virtual manifest for the user device based on the first one or more parameters [evaluating rules for the video content against the received parameters, and generating a dynamic manifest file 157 for the client device based on evaluating the parameters (par. 17 and 37-39, Fig. 1 and 4)]
wherein, the dynamic creation of the virtual manifest comprises determining a target length or a target size of one or more segments of an original stream of data from the content based on the one or more first parameters [evaluating rules for the video content against the received parameters, and generating a dynamic manifest file 157 for the client device based on evaluating the parameters includes determining which segments should be resized or the length adjusted (par. 23, 26-30, and 37-39, Fig. 1-4)] and
wherein, the one or more segments are encoded at different bitrates [multiple bit-rate streams (par. 30)]
automatically generating a new stream of data for the content based on the virtual manifest [streaming video segments based on the generated manifest file (par. 34-35, 38, and 43, Fig. 2)],
wherein the new stream of data adjusts a size or length of the one or more segments of the original stream of data [the segments of video may be copied from original sources and resized or the length adjusted (par. 23, 27, 30, and 38-39, Fig. 2)] and
delivering the content to the user device based on the new stream of data based on the determined target length or the determined target size [delivering the segments of video over network 130, which may then be output to display 160 for viewing by user 185 (par. 34 and 40, Fig. 1 and 3-4)].
Regarding claim 2, Lewis teaches the method of claim 1; Lewis further teaches: the original stream of data is received from an encoder [encoder 170 provides original live video segments 175 (par. 15-16 and 18, Fig. 1)].
Regarding claim 3, Lewis teaches the method of claim 1; Lewis further teaches: dynamically monitoring the one or more first parameters of the user device; and automatically modifying the length or the size of the one or more segments based on a change in the one or more first parameters [monitoring parameters, such as network conditions, and gracefully switching to a lower bit-rate video segment in response to adverse network conditions (par. 30)].
Regarding claim 8, Lewis teaches the method of claim 1; Lewis further teaches: the dynamically creating the virtual manifest comprises comparing the one or more first parameters of the user device with one or more second parameters of at least one cohort from a plurality of cohorts, wherein: cohorts in the plurality of cohorts include different one or more second parameters, and the virtual manifest is created based on the comparison [comparing parameters and generating a manifest for specific group of clients (par. 33-34, 37-39, and 42, Fig. 4). For example, different clients may have different client device profiles, geographic regions, and other parameters, such as browser or operating platform (par. 24-25 and 37, Fig. 3)].
Regarding claim 17, Lewis teaches the method of claim 1; Lewis further teaches: the one or more first parameters comprises at least one of a user device identifier, a playback buffer size, a playback buffer time, a network type, a bandwidth and a location [client device identification (par. 32, 37, and 39). location (par. 19, 24, and 31)].
Regarding claim 18, Lewis teaches the method of claim 1; Lewis further teaches: the request for delivery of the content is received from the user device via a media player of the user device [receiving the request from media player application 156 (par. 36, Fig. 1 and 4)].
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 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 2012/0047542) in view of Lohmar et al. (US 2014/0140253) .
Regarding claim 4, Lewis teaches the method of claim 1; Lewis further teaches: the original stream of data includes the one or more segments of a first length [the segments may be a fixed length, such as 10 seconds (par. 16, Fig. 2)].
Lewis does not explicitly disclose: the one or more segments are combined in a new segment of a different length than the first length in the new stream of data.
Lohmar teaches: the one or more segments are combined in a new segment of a different length than the first length in the new stream of data [combining several media segments into one segment, for example several 10 sec. segments may be combined to form one 80 sec. segment (par. 58-60 and 77-79)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lewis and Lohmar before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lewis by incorporating combining segments into a new segment of a different length as disclosed by Lohmar. The motivation for doing so would have been to save the amount of system resources used (Lohmar - par. 96). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Lewis and Lohmar to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Lewis and Lohmar teach the method of claim 4; Lohmar further teaches: the new segment is listed as a single segment in the virtual manifest [an identifier for the new combined segment is listed in the manifest file (par. 58-60 and 77-79)].
Regarding claim 6, Lewis teaches the method of claim 1; Lewis further teaches: the original stream of data includes the one or more segments [the original segments may be encoded live video segments (par. 16, Fig. 2)].
Lewis does not explicitly disclose: the one or more segments are a first size; and the one or more segments are combined in a new segment of a different size than the first size in the new stream of data.
Lohmar teaches: the one or more segments are a first size; and the one or more segments are combined in a new segment of a different size than the first size in the new stream of data [combining several media segments into one segment that is a larger size (par. 57-59 and 77-80)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lewis and Lohmar before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lewis by incorporating combining segments into a new segment of a different length as disclosed by Lohmar. The motivation for doing so would have been to save the amount of system resources used (Lohmar - par. 96). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Lewis and Lohmar to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Lewis teaches the method of claim 1; Lewis does not explicitly disclose: the one or more segments are combined in a new segment in the new stream of data.
Lohmar teaches: the one or more segments are combined in a new segment in the new stream of data [combining several media segments into one segment for the stream (par. 57-60 and 77-79)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lewis and Lohmar before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lewis by incorporating combining segments into a new segment as disclosed by Lohmar. The motivation for doing so would have been to save the amount of system resources used (Lohmar - par. 96). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Lewis and Lohmar to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 2012/0047542) in view of Armstrong et al. (US 2018/0083994) .
Regarding claim 9, Lewis teaches the method of claim 8; Lewis further teaches: receiving a second request for delivery of a content from at least one other user device [receiving a request to provide a first video content from another client device 350 (par. 27-29 and 36, Fig. 4)]
determining one or more first parameters for the at least one other user device based on the second request [parameters from the client device request, such as Flash, HLS, or binary support (par. 27-29 and 37, Fig. 4)]
dynamically identifying the virtual manifest associated with the user device [when the client device requests video content, the manifest file may be identified and provided (par. 27-29, Fig. 3)]
delivering the requested content to the at least one other user device based on the new stream of data [delivering the segments of video over network 130 to the other client device (par. 33-34 and 40, Fig. 1 and 3-4)].
Lewis does not explicitly disclose: comparing the one or more first parameters of the at least one other user device with the one or more first parameters of the user device; dynamically creating a new cohort for the at least one user device and the user device based on the comparison.
Armstrong teaches: comparing the one or more first parameters of the at least one other user device with the one or more first parameters of the user device; dynamically creating a new cohort for the at least one user device and the user device based on the comparison [compare the attribute data associated with each individual client 101-103 to define a plurality of client groups (par. 26)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lewis and Armstrong before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lewis by incorporating comparing parameters of the at least one other user device with parameters of the user device and dynamically creating a new cohort as disclosed by Armstrong. The motivation for doing so would have been to identify one of the clients as malicious (Armstrong - par. 28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Lewis and Armstrong to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 2012/0047542) in view of Nielsen et al. (US 10,623,787) .
Regarding claim 12, Lewis teaches the method of claim 1; Lewis further teaches: the dynamically creating the virtual manifest based on the one or more first parameters comprises determining one or more failsafe renditions for the virtual manifest [evaluating rules for the video content against the received parameters, and generating a dynamic manifest file 157 for the client device based on evaluating the parameters. Identifying multiple bit-rate versions and incorporating them into the manifest file (par. 30 and 37-39, Fig. 4)].
Lewis does not explicitly disclose: the one or more failsafe renditions is determined based on the one or more first parameters.
Nielsen teaches: the one or more failsafe renditions is determined based on the one or more first parameters [dynamically manage bitrate manifests to dynamically change encoding bitrates offered to clients based on client attributes (col. 3, lines 59-63)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lewis and Nielsen before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lewis by incorporating the one or more failsafe renditions are determined based on the one or more first parameters as disclosed by Nielsen. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide efficient transmission of the requested content to the client computing device and lower the cost associated with the transmission of the content (Nielsen – col. 1, lines 18-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Lewis and Nielsen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, Lewis and Nielsen teach the method of claim 12; Lewis further teaches: the new stream of data for the content is automatically generated based on the one or more failsafe renditions [streaming video segments based on the generated manifest file (par. 34-35, 38, and 43, Fig. 2) based on the multiple bit-rate versions (par. 30 and 37-39, Fig. 4)].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 2012/0047542) in view of Wu et al. (US 10,965,966) .
Regarding claim 14, Lewis teaches the method of claim 1; Lewis does not explicitly disclose: automatically detecting a scene complexity of the content; and dynamically modifying the length or the size for the one or more segments based on one of the scene complexity.
Wu teaches: automatically detecting a scene complexity of the content; and dynamically modifying the length or the size for the one or more segments based on one of the scene complexity [The byte length for a given fragment is a function of the scene complexity of the fragment (col. 6, lines 3-36, Fig. 2)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lewis and Wu before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lewis by incorporating automatically detecting a scene complexity of the content; and dynamically modifying the length or the size for the one or more segments based on the scene complexity as disclosed by Wu. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the delivery of media content and the quality of service of the content delivery (Wu – col. 5, lines 36-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Lewis and Wu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Boyd whose telephone number is (571)270-0676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm PST.
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.
/ALEXANDER BOYD/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights