6Notice 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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/717,864 filed on June 07, 2024 and amendment presented on November 14, 2025 which added new claims 7-10 and presents arguments, is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-10 are pending and subject to examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
5. On pages 6-8 of the response filed November 14, 2025, Applicant’s addresses Double Patenting Rejection and the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection made on the August 20, 2025 Non-Final Rejection. Applicant’s arguments, regarding the Double Patenting Rejection and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103, have been fully considered.
I. Double patenting rejection should be withdrawn:
On pages 6-7, Applicants argue that The claims (including specifically identified claims 1 and 4-5 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/553,110 do not teach or suggest the following limitations of independent claim 1 of the present application:
"ii) deciding to join a multicast channel; then iii) requesting and receiving further segments from the unicast content source and an alternative unicast content source...."
Claim 1 thus requires requesting and receiving further segments from two sources.
Namely, claim 1 requires requesting and receiving further segments from (a) the unicast content source and (b) the alternative unicast content source. This recited step of requesting and receiving further segments from (a) the unicast content source and (b) the alternative unicast content source is performed after deciding to join a multicast channel.
These features of claim 1 are not disclosed or suggested by the claims (including
specifically identified claims 1 and 4-5) of co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/553,110. Claim 1. Applicant therefore requests that the double patenting rejection be withdrawn.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and finds these arguments unpersuasive.
claims 1 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/553,110 recites “…. i) requesting one or more of the requested segments from a unicast content source until a decision is made to join a multicast channel;…. iii) joining a multicast channel….” which claimed subject matter recited in present application claim 1 as “ii) deciding to join a multicast channel;” of present Application no. 18/717,864.
Specification page 4 line 11 discloses The alternative unicast content source may be a retransmission server and claim 4 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/553,110 recites 4. A method of claim 1,wherein the unicast content source is a retransmission server (e.g. alternate unicast content source). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. Therefore, Double patenting is maintained as discussed below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
II. Claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103:
On pages 7-8, Applicants argue that there is no teaching in Mantin of the specific sequence of steps of: “ii) deciding to join a multicast channel; then iii) requesting and receiving further segments from the unicast content source and an alternate content source, and storing the further segments until requested by the client device; (iv) joining a multicast channel…” as recited by Independent claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments based on premises that In Mantin, there is no decision to join a multicast channel in step ii), followed by not actually joining the multicast channel until step iv), and only joining after step iii) where further segments are requested and received from the unicast source and an alternative unicast source.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and finds this argument unpersuasive. The courts have explicitly stated that the prior art need not be solving the same problem as the applicant. SeeKSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). For example, one may arrive at identical claimed invention by solving a completely different problem. 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).
Specifically, the examiner cited prior art “Mantin” teaches the above argued limitation “ii) deciding to join a multicast channel; then iii) requesting and receiving further segments from the unicast content source and an alternate content source, and storing the further segments until requested by the client device; iv) joining a multicast channel…” as recited by Independent claim 1.
Mantin teaches “ii) deciding to join a multicast channel” as recited by independent claim 1.
Mantin describes a multicast delivery system (MDS) 150 (e.g. network element) includes a controller 250 is configured to determine, based on the inputs received from the stream classifier 210 and the network topology analyzer 230, whether there is a unicast OTT stream which is currently being delivered in a unicast format that can be transmitted in a multicast format (Mantin: [paragraph 0042]). Mantin further describes the multicast delivery system (MDS) 150 (e.g. network element) includes stream handler 503 is configured to select the proper source (i.e., unicast or multicast) from the stream to the media player 510 that should be delivered. The multicast delivery system (MDS) 150 (e.g. network element) includes the streaming proxy 500 is further configured to switchover from a selected source to another source such as, e.g., from a unicast to multicast streaming source, or vice-versa (e.g. deciding to join a multicast channel). The switchover decision may be taken based on various parameters (Mantin: [paragraph 0055, 0057]). Thus, Mantin still teaches “ii) deciding to join a multicast channel” as recited by independent claim 1.
Mantin further teaches iii) requesting and receiving further segments from the unicast content source and an alternate content source, and storing the further segments until requested by the client device; ” as recited by Independent claim 1.
Mantin describes unicast stream sources (e.g. unicast content source and an alternate content source) (Mantin: [paragraph 0005, 0028]).Mantin further describes Thus, the proxy 500 is configured to adapt a received multicast stream to a unicast format. The streaming proxy 500 includes a unicast client 501, a multicast client 502, a stream handler 503, and unicast OTT content servers 504. The unicast and multicast clients 501 and 502, respectively, implement unicast and multicast protocols. The stream handler 503 is configured to select the proper sources (i.e., unicast sources or multicast sources) from the stream to the media player 510 that should be delivered. The multicast delivery system (MDS) (e.g. network element) or unicast server receives a stream's content in a unicast format from the handler 503 which is configured to select the proper sources (i.e., unicast stream sources e.g. unicast content source and an alternate content source) and streams the content to the media player 510. the streaming proxy 500 is further configured to switchover from a selected source to another source such as, e.g., from a unicast to multicast streaming source, or vice-versa. The switchover decision may be taken based on various parameters. In one embodiment, the switchover may be required if, for example, the number of users attempting to access the OTT content increases such that switching from several unicast streams to one multicast stream would decrease bandwidth and improve user experience. In such cases, the streaming proxy may be configured to temporarily retrieve both the multicast and unicast streams, thereby enabling the stream to continue uninterrupted as the UED 110 transitions from providing a unicast stream to providing a multicast stream (Mantin: [paragraph 0053-0057]). Thus, Mantin still teaches iii) requesting and receiving further segments from the unicast content source and an alternate content source, and storing the further segments until requested by the client device; ” as recited by Independent claim 1.
Mantin further teaches (iv) joining a multicast channel…” as recited by Independent claim 1.
Mantin describes the stream handler 503 is configured to select the proper source (i.e., unicast or multicast) from the stream to the media player 510 that should be delivered. The unicast server 504 receives a stream's content in a unicast format from the handler 503 and streams the content to the media player 510 , the streaming proxy 500 is further configured to switchover from a selected source to another source such as, e.g., from a unicast to multicast streaming source (e.g. joining multicast source), or vice-versa. The switchover decision may be taken based on various parameters. In one embodiment, the switchover may be required if, for example, the number of users attempting to access the OTT content increases such that switching from several unicast streams to one multicast stream would decrease bandwidth and improve user experience. In such cases, the streaming proxy may be configured to temporarily retrieve both the multicast and unicast streams, thereby enabling the stream to continue uninterrupted as the UED 110 transitions from providing a unicast stream to providing a multicast stream (Mantin: [paragraph 0053-0057]). Thus, Mantin still teaches (iv) joining a multicast channel…” as recited by Independent claim 1.
Therefore, the examiner cited prior art “Mantin” still teaches the above argued limitation “ii) deciding to join a multicast channel; then iii) requesting and receiving further segments from the unicast content source and an alternate content source, and storing the further segments until requested by the client device; iv) joining a multicast channel…” as recited by Independent claim 1.Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is hereby maintained.
Applicant’s further arguments based on premises that In Mantin Claim 1 also requires receiving further segments from the unicast content source and an alternative unicast content source. This enables the network element (proxy) to be able to "catch- up" when the segments available over multicast are ahead of the unicast requests (and unicast content source). This claim feature and its resulting technical advantage is not appreciated by Mantin.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and finds this argument unpersuasive. The courts have explicitly stated that the prior art need not be solving the same problem as the applicant. SeeKSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). For example, one may arrive at identical claimed invention by solving a completely different problem.
Mantin describes unicast stream sources (e.g. unicast content source and an alternate content source) (Mantin: [paragraph 0005, 0028]).Manti describes Existing solutions for multicasting multimedia content including OTT streams are discussed in the related art. One approach for reducing the bandwidth consumption of OTT content and services is based on caching the OTT streams' content. In some embodiments, the streaming proxy 500 is further configured to switchover from a selected source to another source such as, e.g., from a multicast to unicast streaming source, or vice-versa. Thus, Mantin also requires receiving further segments from the unicast content source and an alternative unicast content source. Therefore, Applicant’s above arguments are unpersuasive.
On page 8, Applicants argue that Dependent claim 3 further describes the alternative unicast content source. Namely, dependent claim 3 recites "wherein the further content segments from the alternative unicast content source are requested in advance of corresponding requests from the client device." This feature is clearly missing from Mantin also.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and finds this argument unpersuasive. The courts have explicitly stated that the prior art need not be solving the same problem as the applicant. SeeKSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). For example, one may arrive at identical claimed invention by solving a completely different problem.
Mantin teaches "wherein the further content segments from the alternative unicast content source are requested in advance of corresponding requests from the client device." as recited by dependent claim 3.
Mantin describes the switching from one source to the other is performed without stopping, delaying, or impacting the reception of a stream played by the media player. That is, from the viewer's perspective, the transition to a different OTT streaming source is seamless and would not impact the QoE provided to a viewer of the media player. As such, the network operator controls the media streaming server and, therefore, can determine if the delivered content can be multicasted, as well as the number of concurrent viewers of the streamed content. Existing solutions for multicasting multimedia content including OTT streams are discussed in the related art (Mantin: [paragraph 0009-0010, 0041, 0057-0058]). Thus, Mantin still teaches "wherein the further content segments from the alternative unicast content source are requested in advance of corresponding requests from the client device." as recited by dependent claim 3. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claim 3 is hereby maintained.
Applicants argue claim 6 based on the arguments presented for Claim 1 at page 8 of the remarks. The same explanation is applicable to claim 6 as mentioned above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-5
Applicant’s argues these claims conditionally based upon arguments presented for their parent claim(s). Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and therefore, the rejections of these claims 2-5 are hereby maintained.
New claims 7-10
As per newly added claims 7-10, Applicants arguments have been fully considered. However, a new ground of rejection is made as discussed below.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-5 of copending Application No. 18/553,110 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because for the following reasons.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
See also MPEP § 804, section (I)(B)(1) (“If two (or more) pending applications are filed, in each of which a rejection of one claimed invention over the other on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting (NDP) is proper, the provisional NDP rejection will be made in each application.”).
Instant Application No. 18/717,864
Copending Application No. 18/553,110
1. (Original) A method of managing content delivery to a client device by a network element, said content comprising a sequence of segments, said method comprising:
receiving requests for segments from a client device, and transmitting the requested segments to the client device by unicast, wherein the transmitted segments are obtained by the network element by:
i) requesting one or more of the requested segments from a unicast content source; ii) deciding to join a multicast channel; then
iii) requesting and receiving further segments from the unicast content source and an alternative unicast content source, and storing the further segments until requested by the client device; and
iv) joining a multicast channel and receiving segments over multicast, and storing the segments until requested by the client device.
2. (Original) A method according to claim 1, wherein the further content segments from the unicast content source are requested in response to corresponding requests received from the client device.
1. (Original) A method of managing content delivery to a client device by a network element, said content comprising a sequence of segments, said method comprising:
receiving requests for segments from a client device, and transmitting the requested segments to the client device by unicast, wherein the transmitted segments are obtained by the network element by:
i) requesting one or more of the requested segments from a unicast content source until a decision is made to join a multicast channel;
ii) requesting further segments from a unicast content source before the corresponding requests for the further segments are received from the client device, and storing the further segments until requested by the client device; and
iii) joining a multicast channel and receiving segments over multicast, and storing the segments until requested by the client device.
5. (Currently Amended) A method according to claim 1,wherein the alternative unicast content source is a retransmission server.
4. (Currently Amended) A method according to claim 1,wherein the unicast content source is a retransmission server.
6. (Original) A network element for managing content delivery to a client device, said content comprising a sequence of segments, said network element adapted in operation to:
receive requests for segments from a client device, and transmit the requested segments to the client device by unicast;
request one or more of the requested segments from a unicast content source; decide to join a multicast channel;
request and receive further segments from the unicast content source and an alternative unicast content source, and storing the further segments until requested by the client device; and
join a multicast channel and receiving segments over multicast, and storing the segments until requested by the client device.
5. (Original) A network element for managing content delivery to a client device, said content comprising a sequence of segments, said network element adapted in operation to:
receive requests for segments from a client device, and transmit the requested segments to the client device by unicast, wherein the network element is further adapted in operation to obtain the transmitted segments by:
i) requesting one or more of the requested segments from a unicast content source until a decision is made to join a multicast channel;
ii) requesting further segments from a unicast content source before the corresponding requests for the further segments are received from the client device, and storing the further segments until requested by the client device; and iii) joining a multicast channel and receiving segments over multicast, and storing the segments until requested by the client device.
The main difference between claim 1 and 6 of instant Application no.18/717,864 as opposed to claims 1 and 5 of copending application 18/553,110 lies in the recitation of
Missing “alternative unicast content source”. However, the specification at page 4 lines 4-8 readily admits that “At any given time, there may be segment data available by multicast and from the alternative unicast source that isn't yet available from the unicast content source. The alternative unicast content source may be a retransmission server. Therefore, such would have been an obvious variation of the recitations of claims 1 and 5 of copending application 18/553,110.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mantin (US 2015/0036526).
Regarding Claim 1, Mantin teaches a method of managing content delivery to a client device by a network element, said content comprising a sequence of segments ([paragraph 0003-0004, 0010, 0025] describes managing content delivery to a client device such as a media player by a network system (e.g. network element) and content stream represent segments of the content), said method comprising:
receiving requests for segments from a client device, and transmitting the requested segments to the client device by unicast ([paragraph 0057, 0060-0062] describes receiving requests for content stream represent segments of the content from the client device such as the media player and transmitting the requested the content stream represent the segments of the content the client device such as the media player by unicast and the streaming proxy is further configured to switchover from a selected source to another source such as, e.g., from a unicast to multicast streaming source, or vice-versa),
wherein the transmitted segments are obtained by the network element by: i) requesting one or more of the requested segments from a unicast content source ([paragraph 0041, 0057-0058] describes the transmitted segments are obtained by the network system (e.g. network element) requesting the content stream represent the segments of the content from a unicast content source and the network system (e.g. network element) supports unicast OTT content stream);
ii) deciding to join a multicast channel ([paragraph 0042] describes The controller 250 is configured to determine, based on the inputs received from the stream classifier 210 and the network topology analyzer 230, whether there is a unicast OTT stream which is currently being delivered in a unicast format that can be transmitted in a multicast format [paragraph 0055] describes The stream handler 503 is configured to select the proper source -i.e., unicast or multicast- from the stream to the media player 510 that should be delivered [paragraph 0057] describes the streaming proxy 500 is further configured to switchover from a selected source to another source such as, e.g., from a unicast to multicast streaming source, or vice-versa. The switchover decision may be taken based on various parameters);
then iii) requesting and receiving further segments from the unicast content source and an alternative unicast content source, and storing the further segments until requested by the client device([paragraph 0053] describes the proxy 500 is configured to adapt a received multicast stream to a unicast format [paragraph 0054] describes the streaming proxy 500 includes a unicast client 501, a multicast client 502, a stream handler 503, and a unicast server 504. The unicast and multicast clients 501 and 502, respectively, implement unicast and multicast protocols [paragraph 0055] describes the stream handler 503 is configured to select the proper source (i.e., unicast or multicast) from the stream to the media player 510 that should be delivered [paragraph 0056]describes The unicast server 504 receives a stream's content in a unicast format from the handler 503 and streams the content to the media player 510 [paragraph 0057] describes the streaming proxy 500 is further configured to switchover from a selected source to another source such as, e.g., from a unicast to multicast streaming source, or vice-versa. The switchover decision may be taken based on various parameters. In one embodiment, the switchover may be required if, for example, the number of users attempting to access the OTT content increases such that switching from several unicast streams to one multicast stream would decrease bandwidth and improve user experience. In such cases, the streaming proxy may be configured to temporarily retrieve both the multicast and unicast streams, thereby enabling the stream to continue uninterrupted as the UED 110 transitions from providing a unicast stream to providing a multicast stream);
and iv) joining a multicast channel and receiving segments over multicast, and storing the segments until requested by the client device ([paragraph 0053-0059] describes the stream handler 503 is configured to select the proper source (i.e., unicast or multicast) from the stream to the media player 510 that should be delivered. The unicast server 504 receives a stream's content in a unicast format from the handler 503 and streams the content to the media player 510 , the streaming proxy 500 is further configured to switchover from a selected source to another source such as, e.g., from a unicast to multicast streaming source, or vice-versa. The switchover decision may be taken based on various parameters. In one embodiment, the switchover may be required if, for example, the number of users attempting to access the OTT content increases such that switching from several unicast streams to one multicast stream would decrease bandwidth and improve user experience. In such cases, the streaming proxy may be configured to temporarily retrieve both the multicast and unicast streams, thereby enabling the stream to continue uninterrupted as the UED 110 transitions from providing a unicast stream to providing a multicast stream and storing the content streams represents segments of contents until requested by the client device such as the media player).
Regarding Claim 2, Mantin teaches a method, wherein the further content segments from the unicast content source are requested in response to corresponding requests received from the client device ([paragraph 0057, 0060-0062] describes receiving requests for content stream represent segments of the content from the client device such as the media player [paragraph 0041, 0057-0058] describes the transmitted segments are obtained by the network system (e.g. network element) requesting the content stream represent the segments of the content from a unicast content source and the network system (e.g. network element) supports unicast OTT content stream).
Regarding Claim 3, Mantin teaches a method, wherein the further content segments from the alternative unicast content source are requested in advance of corresponding requests from the client device ([paragraph 0041, 0057-0058] describes the switching from one source to the other is performed without stopping, delaying, or impacting the reception of a stream played by the media player. That is, from the viewer's perspective, the transition to a different OTT streaming source is seamless and would not impact the QoE provided to a viewer of the media player).
Regarding Claim 4, Mantin teaches a method, wherein at any given time, there is segment data available by multicast and from the alternative unicast source that isn't yet available from the unicast content source ([paragraph 0025, 0029-0030, 0041] describes segment data is available by multicast is a live, linear, or replicated OTT, or any other multicast-able streams when unicast stream is still not available from other source).
Regarding claims 6-9, these claims contain limitations found within that of claims 1-4 and the same rationale to rejections are used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantin (US 2015/0036526); in view of CRABTREE et al. (US 2017/0118263 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Mantin fails to teach a method, wherein the alternative unicast content source is a retransmission server.
However, CRABTREE teaches a method, wherein the alternative unicast content source is a retransmission server ([paragraph 0042-0043, 0052] describes other unicast source is a retransmission server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Mantin to include wherein the alternative unicast content source is a retransmission server as taught by CRABTREE. One ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Mantin in the CRABTREE system in order to use a retransmission server to retransmit lost packets ([paragraph 0052] in CRABTREE).
Regarding claim 10, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 5 and the same rationale to rejection is used.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- DA SILVA MARTINS et al., US 2022/0329878 A1, Techniques for a novel, pervasive approach to disseminating live streaming content combines secure distributed systems.
- Bonta et al., US 2012/0140645 A1, A method and apparatus for distributing live video to multiple client devices is provided herein.
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 MEHULKUMAR J SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6:05 am-3:55 pm.
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, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2459 /SCHQUITA D GOODWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459