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 filed 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant alleges that Joe fails to disclose “verifying, at a management entity, that an environment-related condition of said read device is reached” since congestion detection is performed locally at the user in Joe. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Joe discloses (¶0037, 0054-¶0058) that the buffer fill rate of the user device is monitored by the congestion detector to indicate switched delivery system to switch to another multicast group/server to obtain content; (¶0054) the process of Fig. 7 is performed by one of the devices, such as switched delivery system, excluding user device. Based on this information, it is obvious that the step 750 of monitoring congestion can be performed by the switched delivery system, and NOT the user. Also, the Examiner would like to point out that the claim requires to verify the condition at a management entity, and doesn’t define anywhere in the claim where the management entity is located. Based on the BRI, the management facility can be located anywhere including at the user device location. Therefore it moots Applicant’s argument and the rejection is maintained.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that Joe does not disclose obtaining segments from a second server in response to such verification. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, combination of Nilsson and Joe was used to reject the limitation where Nilsson discloses (¶0011, ¶0058) when the quality level of the content degrades indicating slow network connection, the proxy switches from one server to another server, and Joe discloses (¶0037, 0054-¶0058) that the buffer fill rate of the user device is monitored by the device such as the switched delivery system that switches to another multicast group to obtain content when the congestion is detected. The motivation/suggestion is that it is the most sensible way to detect quality of the segment/content received by the user device and to switch the quality of video stream to ensure uninterrupted streaming (Joe - ¶0010). Therefore it moots Applicant’s argument and the rejection is maintained.
See the 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 2024/0397134 to Nilsson (“Nilsson”) in view of US PG Pub 2012/0198506 to Joe (“Joe”).
Regarding claim 1, “A method for managing access by a read device to segments of a content accessible from content servers” reads on the method of managing content delivery to a client device via a proxy (abstract) disclosed by Nilsson and represented in Figs. 1 and 2. Nilsson further discloses (¶0027) that the content is made up of a sequence of content segments, where the proxy starts off by receiving content requests from the client device over unicast, and fulfilling those requests by forwarding them to a content server, and receiving that content before forwarding onto the client device.
As to “the method comprising: initially obtaining segments of the content from a first server” Nilsson discloses (¶0036) that the system passes the encoded content segment data to the unicast server where the data is stored and made available for delivery by unicast.
As to “an environment-related condition of said read device is reached, …obtaining segments of the content from a second server” Nilsson discloses (¶0011, ¶0058) that when the quality level of the content degrades indicating slow network connection, the proxy switches from one server to another server; (¶0038-¶0040, ¶0044) the client device determines for each content segment, the encoded bit rate (quality) at which to request it, taking into account such factors as the available network throughput and how much data is already received and buffered at the client device awaiting play-out; when the unicast server determines that a sufficient number of client devices have requested the same content segment at about the same time, it instructs the multicast transmitter to transmit the content segment on the multicast channel.
Nilsson meets all the limitation of the claim except “verifying, at a management entity, that an environment-related condition of said read device is reached; and in response to the environment-related condition being verified, obtaining segments of the content from a second server.” However, Joe discloses (¶0037, 0054-¶0058) that the buffer fill rate of the user device is monitored by the congestion detector to indicate switched delivery system to switch to another multicast group/server to obtain content as represented in Fig. 7; (¶0054) the process of Fig. 7 is performed by one of the devices, such as switched delivery system, as represented in Fig. 1. 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 Nilsson’s system by verifying environment-related condition of the client device and receiving content from a second server as taught by Joe in order to detect the device buffer fill rate and switch between the different quality video streams to ensure uninterrupted streaming (Joe - ¶0010).
Regarding claim 2, “The method according to claim 1, wherein said first server is associated with a unicast receiving mode and/or said second server is associated with a multicast receiving mode” Nilsson discloses (¶0038-¶0040) that the unicast server delivers content segments and the multicast transmitter transmits content segments.
Regarding claim 3, “The method according to claim 1, wherein said environment-related condition of said read device comprises a condition concerning information associated with the segments obtained by said read device” Nilsson discloses (¶0039-¶0040) that the unicast server monitors the requests for content segments made by a plurality of client devices.
Regarding claim 4, “The method according to claim 3, wherein said read device transmits information on its environment to said management entity, and said management entity determines whether said condition is reached as a function of said information” Nilsson discloses (¶0040-¶0041) that the multicast transmitter is configured to take account of buffering requirements on the plurality of proxies that receive the multicast data and store content segments until requested by client devices; when data is delivered by multicast significantly before it has been requested by a large number of client devices, each associated proxy must buffer the multicast data, and Joe discloses (¶0037, 0054-¶0058) that the buffer fill rate of the user device is monitored by the congestion detector to indicate switched delivery system to switch to another multicast group/server to obtain content as represented in Fig. 7; (¶0054) the process of Fig. 7 is performed by one of the devices, such as switched delivery system, as represented in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 5, “The method according to claim 4, wherein said information comprises a time length associated with the segments contained in a buffer memory of said read device” Nilsson discloses (¶0028-¶0029) that to avoid slow/delayed delivery of content to the client device when switching from unicast to multicast, the proxy determines whether, in the event of data being received at the proxy by multicast and then delivered to the client device in response to the requests from the client device, the client device would change the quality level of the content segments being requested. This may be done by the proxy receiving a request for a content segment from the client device, and obtaining that segment from the unicast server over unicast. The proxy also requests timing information from the multicast server to determine a time at which the same segment will complete delivery over multicast. The proxy then delivers the segment received from the unicast server by the determined multicast delivery time; (¶0041) to reduce overall system storage requirements, the multicast transmitter is configured to delay the transmission of a content segment by multicast for a short period of time, such as a few seconds, relative to the time at which the content segment is made available on the unicast server to align the timing of the delivery of content segments by multicast more closely with the timing of the requesting of the content segments by the client devices, to reduce the storage requirements of the proxy, and Joe discloses (¶0037, 0054-¶0058) that the buffer fill rate of the user device is monitored by the congestion detector to indicate switched delivery system to switch to another multicast group/server to obtain content as represented in Fig. 7.
Regarding claim 6, “The method according to claim 5, wherein said information is transmitted with requests for segments transmitted by said read device” Nilsson discloses (¶0028-¶0029) that to avoid slow/delayed delivery of content to the client device when switching from unicast to multicast, the proxy determines whether, in the event of data being received at the proxy by multicast and then delivered to the client device in response to the requests from the client device, the client device would change the quality level of the content segments being requested. This may be done by the proxy receiving a request for a content segment from the client device, and obtaining that segment from the unicast server over unicast. The proxy also requests timing information from the multicast server to determine a time at which the same segment will complete delivery over multicast. The proxy then delivers the segment received from the unicast server by the determined multicast delivery time; (¶0041) to reduce overall system storage requirements, the multicast transmitter is configured to delay the transmission of a content segment by multicast for a short period of time, such as a few seconds, relative to the time at which the content segment is made available on the unicast server to align the timing of the delivery of content segments by multicast more closely with the timing of the requesting of the content segments by the client devices, to reduce the storage requirements of the proxy.
Regarding claim 7, see rejection similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, “A gateway comprising the management entity according to claim 7” Nilsson discloses (¶0033) that the proxy is located within a device such as a home gateway.
Regarding claim 9, see rejection similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, see rejection similar to claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, see rejection similar to claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, see rejection similar to claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, see rejection similar to claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection similar to claim 6.
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 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
Prosecution Insights