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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the claims to recite that the method is performed by the client device and argues that the Jennings reference fails to teach that the segment determination process is performed by the client device. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Jennings teaches in Paragraphs 0036-0039 and Figure 5 for the client device receiving the manifest and using the manifest to determine a most recent segment/latest available segment number and a current segment that has a segment number that is less than the latest available segment number (see Paragraph 0037). The client device performs this process based on the received segment numbers identified in the manifest file, therefore the claims stand rejected using the combination of Kellicker and Jennings prior art references.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellicker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0322412) in view of Jennings et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0366198).
Referring to claim 1, Kellicker discloses a computer-implemented method for simulating live event streaming on a client device (see Abstract for sending a test stream to audiences), the method comprising, by the client device (see the Examiner’s rebuttal above):
transmitting a request for the current segment to the content engine (see Paragraphs 0029 and 0033 for the system transmitting the test stream in segments and Paragraph 0027 for requesting the live stream); and
receiving the current segment from the content engine (see Paragraph 0028 for receiving the test stream, wherein Paragraphs 0029-0033 for the test stream being transmitted in segments).
Kellicker fails to teach computing a latest available segment number associated with content to be downloaded from a content engine and determining a current segment to be downloaded from the content engine determining that a segment number associated with the current segment is less than or equal to the latest available segment number.
Jennings discloses computing a latest available segment number associated with a content item to be downloaded from a content engine (see Figure 5 and Paragraph 0037 for receiving a manifest that identifies the current segment);
determining a current segment to be downloaded from the content engine determining that a segment number associated with the current segment is less than or equal to the latest available segment number (see Figure 5 and Paragraph 0037 for selecting, based on the received manifest file that identifies the current segment available, a segment that is neither the most recent or the oldest);
transmitting a request for the current segment to the content engine (see Paragraph 0037 for the client sending an HTTP get request to retrieve the determined segment); and
receiving the current segment from the content engine (see the bottom of Paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the live stream testing system, as taught by Kellicker, using the video segment transmission system using a manifest file, as taught by Jennings, for the purpose of allowing presentation of video content in a synchronized manner on two or more client devices located in the customer premises (see Paragraph 0005 of Jennings).
Referring to claim 2, Jennings also discloses comprising incrementing the current segment, recomputing the latest available segment number, and determining whether a current segment number associated with the incremented current segment is less than or equal to the recomputed latest available segment number (see Paragraphs 0039-0040 and Paragraphs 0043-0044 for incrementing the segment number to retrieve subsequent segments (x+1, x+2) and only begin to watch the incremented segments once a certain number of segments have been stored in the buffer or after a certain total duration of video has been stored in the buffer, therefore segments are incremented and stored in a buffer, wherein recomputed latest available segment number is determined when the buffer allows the client to begin streaming, wherein since the initial incremented segments have been stored, the stored previously stored incremented segment numbers are less than the additional segments stored in the buffer once playback begins).
Referring to claim 3, Jennings also discloses generating a segment template that includes an availability start time associated with the content item, and transmitting the segment template to the content engine (see Table 1 for including the first available segment in the list of four consecutive segments in the manifest file and Paragraph 0026 for sending the manifest file from the server to the client device).
Referring to claim 4, Jennings also discloses that the availability start time is based on a buffer duration (see Paragraph 0039).
Referring to claim 5, Jennings also discloses that the latest available segment number is computed based on the availability start time included in the segment template and a current time associated with the client device (see Table 1 and Paragraph 0027 which states before or at the time of the request, the server 120 generates or identifies the media segments of the requested media content as streaming media content, which results in the created manifest file that identifies the duration, sequence and four segments to transmit to the client device upon such a request).
Referring to claim 6, Jennings also discloses the segment template includes a starting segment number for the content item from which streaming is to begin (see Table 1 and Paragraph 0028).
Referring to claim 7, Jennings also discloses that upon receiving the request for the current segment, the content engine determines that the segment number associated with the current segment is less than or to a second latest available segment number computed by the content server, and, in response, transmits the current segment to the client device (see Paragraph 0037 and the rejection of claims 1-2 above, wherein the Examiner notes that multiple subsequent segments are also requested (see Table 1 for a manifest including 4 consecutive segments)).
Referring to claim 9, Jennings also discloses calculating a segment duration for each segment included in the content item based on a predetermined segment duration expressed in time units and a predetermined timescale expressed in time units per second (see Table 1 and Paragraphs 0027-0028 for creation of the manifest file that includes the number of segments, the order of presentation of the segments and duration of the segment).
Referring to claims 11-12, see the rejection of claims 1-2, respectively.
Referring to claim 13, Jennings discloses that the current segment number associated with the incremented current segment is greater than the recomputed latest available segment number, and further comprising calculating when the incremented current segment is going to be available (see Paragraphs 0039-0040 and Paragraphs 0043-0044 for incrementing the segment number to retrieve subsequent segments (x+1, x+2) and only begin to watch the incremented segments once a certain number of segments have been stored in the buffer or after a certain total duration of video has been stored in the buffer, therefore segments are incremented and stored in a buffer, wherein recomputed latest available segment number is determined when the buffer allows the client to begin streaming, wherein since the initial incremented segments have been stored, the stored previously stored incremented segment numbers are less than the additional segments stored in the buffer once playback begins).
Referring to claim 14, Jennings discloses waiting until the incremented segment is available for download, and transmitting a request for the incremented current segment to the content engine (see Paragraph 0039).
Referring to claims 15-17, see the rejection of claims 5-6 and 4, respectively.
Referring to claim 18, Jennings discloses transmitting the segment template to the content engine via a customized HTTP request (see Paragraph 0036), however Jennings fails to teach customizing the HTTP request header.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that a HTTP request to the server for a manifest file can customize the header of the HTTP request.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the live stream testing system, as taught by Kellicker and Jennings, using the customized HTTP request header, as taught by the Examiner statement of Official Notice, for the purpose of providing information about the requested resource and the client’s capabilities.
Referring to claim 19, Jennings discloses all of the limitations of claim 11, but fails to teach that the content item comprises SVOD content.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that content items can be acquired using a SVOD network.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the live stream testing system, as taught by Kellicker and Jennings, using the SVOD network, as taught by the Examiner’s statement of Official Notice, for the purpose of providing predictable revenue for providers, offering unlimited, ad-free access to a vast content library for viewers and fostering viewer loyalty through exclusive content.
Referring to claim 20, see the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellicker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0322412) in view of Jennings et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0366198) in further view of Habib et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0098261).
Referring to claim 8, Kellicker and Jennings disclose all of the limitations of claim 7, as well as Jennings teaching that the second latest available segment number is computed based on the segment template (see Table 1 and Paragraphs 0027-0028), but fail to teach that the second latest available segment number considers a current time associated with a localization server on which the content engine resides.
Habib discloses that a latest available segment number considers a current time associated with a localization server on which the content engine resides (see Paragraphs 0064 and 0067).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the live stream testing system, as taught by Kellicker and Jennings, using the localization server functionality, as taught by Habib, for the purpose of allowing modification of presentation content of an application without significant delay and permitting the application at a client device to be up to date for its localization configuration (see Paragraph 0008 of Habib).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellicker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0322412) in view of Jennings et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0366198) in further view of Agnihotri et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0049186).
Referring to claim 10, Kellicker and Jennings disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach that the request includes a current system time associated with the client device and an initial position within the content item from which streaming is to begin.
Agnihotri discloses that the request includes a current system time associated with the client device and an initial position within the content item from which streaming is to begin (see Paragraphs 0057-0059 and 0063-0064).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the live stream testing system, as taught by Kellicker and Jennings, using the localization server functionality, as taught by Agnihotri, for the purpose of facilitating trick modes without requiring the client device to have large buffering capabilities and avoids preprocessing at the service provider (see Paragraph 0008 of Agnihotri).
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 JASON P SALCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7301. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am-10:00pm M-F (Flex Schedule).
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/Jason Salce/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Jason P Salce
Senior Examiner
Art Unit 2421
April 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights