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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-4 are pending.
Applicant's arguments in the Remarks filed on 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s arguments (pages 5-9), Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Denoual (845) discloses the MPD request contains a push directive conveyed via a push header (¶ [0528], ¶ [0544] and ¶ [0639]). The request can contain two different push directives (¶ [0581]) or a set of push directives (¶ [0663] and ¶ [0667]-[0668]). The push directive includes push type information and parameters (¶ [0324], ¶ [0609]-[0610] and ¶ [0650]-[0655]). In the case of the fast-start push type, the push directive includes both information indicating that (i) the initialization segment and (ii) video segments are to be transmitted by push, and using associated parameters to indicate quantity, quality level or a resolution of video segments (¶ [0571]-[0580] and ¶ [0650]-[0654]).
Therefore, the teaching of Denoual (845) meets the claimed language of “the push directive includes (i) first information… by push from the server”.
Similarly, Denoual (442) discloses the MPD request contains an indication of a push directive conveyed via a push header (¶ [0381] and ¶ [0397]). The push directive includes push type information and possibly associated parameters (¶ [0433]-[0438] and ¶ [0545]-[0548]). In the case of the MPD request containing the fast-start push directive, the push directive includes associated parameters explicitly indicating whether the initialization segments being pushed (¶ [0450]), or the push directive includes specific and distinct parameters indicating (i) the initialization segment and (ii) video segments are to be transmitted by push from a server (¶ [0450]-[0451]).
Therefore, the teaching of Denoual (442) also meets the claimed language of “the push directive includes (i) first information… by push from the server”.
For the reasons mentioned above, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Double Patenting
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 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10951944 in view of Denoual et al (US 2018/0013845).
The application claim 1 and the patented claim 1 are both drawn to the same invention.
The differences between the application claim 1 compared to the patented claim 1 are “the push directive includes first information…, and second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server”.
Denoual (845) discloses “the push directive includes first information…, and second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server” (¶ [0324], ¶ [0554]-[0557], ¶ [0571]-[0580], ¶ [0593]-[0596], ¶ [0609]-[0610] and ¶ [0643]-[0655]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patented claim with the teaching of Denoual, so to enhance system with providing more information using a push policy/directive in the MPD request.
Claim 2 corresponds to the patent claim 4.
Claim 3 corresponds to the patent claim 6.
Claim 4 corresponds to the patent claim 8.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10951944 in view of Denoual et al (US 2017/0230442).
The application claim 1 and the patented claim 1 are both drawn to the same invention.
The differences between the application claim 1 compared to the patented claim 1 are “the push directive includes first information…, and second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server”.
Denoual (442) discloses “the push directive includes first information…, and second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server” (¶ [0176], ¶ [0412], ¶ [0433]-[0438], ¶ [0447]-[0451], ¶ [0529] and ¶ [0545]-[0548]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patented claim with the teaching of Denoual, so to enhance system with providing more information using a push policy/directive in the MPD request.
Claim 2 corresponds to the patent claim 4.
Claim 3 corresponds to the patent claim 6.
Claim 4 corresponds to the patent claim 8.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11336951 in view of Denoual et al (US 2018/0013845).
The application claim 1 and the patented claim 1 are both drawn to the same invention.
The differences between the application claim 1 compared to the patented claim 1 are “the push directive includes first information…, and second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server”.
Denoual (845) discloses “the push directive includes first information…, and second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server” (¶ [0324], ¶ [0554]-[0557], ¶ [0571]-[0580], ¶ [0593]-[0596], ¶ [0609]-[0610] and ¶ [0643]-[0653]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patented claim with the teaching of Denoual, so to enhance system with providing more information using a push policy/directive in the MPD request.
Claim 2 corresponds to the patent claim 2.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11336951 in view of Denoual et al (US 2017/0230442).
The application claim 1 and the patented claim 1 are both drawn to the same invention.
The differences between the application claim 1 compared to the patented claim 1 are “the push directive includes first information…, and second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server”.
Denoual (442) discloses “the push directive includes first information…, and second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server” (¶ [0176], ¶ [0412], ¶ [0433]-[0438], ¶ [0447]-[0451], ¶ [0529] and ¶ [0545]-[0548]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patented claim with the teaching of Denoual, so to enhance system with providing more information using a push policy/directive in the MPD request.
Claim 2 corresponds to the patent claim 2.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11678009 in view of Denoual et al (US 2018/0013845).
The application claim 1 and the patented claim 1 are both drawn to the same invention.
The differences between the application claim 1 compared to the patented claim 1 are “the push directive includes first information…, and second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server”.
Denoual (845) discloses “the push directive includes first information…, and second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server” (¶ [0324], ¶ [0554]-[0557], ¶ [0571]-[0580], ¶ [0593]-[0596], ¶ [0609]-[0610] and ¶ [0643]-[0653]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patented claim with the teaching of Denoual, so to enhance system with providing more information using a push policy/directive in the MPD request.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11678009 in view of Denoual et al (US 2017/0230442).
The application claim 1 and the patented claim 1 are both drawn to the same invention.
The differences between the application claim 1 compared to the patented claim 1 are “the push directive includes first information…, and second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server”.
Denoual (442) discloses “the push directive includes first information…, and second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server” (¶ [0176], ¶ [0412], ¶ [0433]-[0438], ¶ [0447]-[0451], ¶ [0529] and ¶ [0545]-[0548]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patented claim with the teaching of Denoual, so to enhance system with providing more information using a push policy/directive in the MPD request.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12170812 in view of Denoual et al (US 2018/0013845).
The application claim 2 and the patented claim 1 are both drawn to the same invention.
The differences between the application claim 1 compared to the patented claim 1 are “the push directive includes first information…, and second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server”.
Denoual (845) discloses “the push directive includes first information…, and second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server” (¶ [0324], ¶ [0554]-[0557], ¶ [0571]-[0580], ¶ [0593]-[0596], ¶ [0609]-[0610] and ¶ [0643]-[0653]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patented claim with the teaching of Denoual, so to enhance system with providing more information using a push policy/directive in the MPD request.
Claim 4 corresponds to the patent claim 2.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12170812 in view of Denoual et al (US 2017/0230442).
The application claim 2 and the patented claim 1 are both drawn to the same invention.
The differences between the application claim 1 compared to the patented claim 1 are “the push directive includes first information…, and second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server”.
Denoual (442) discloses “the push directive includes first information…, and second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server” (¶ [0176], ¶ [0412], ¶ [0433]-[0438], ¶ [0447]-[0451], ¶ [0529] and ¶ [0545]-[0548]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patented claim with the teaching of Denoual, so to enhance system with providing more information using a push policy/directive in the MPD request.
Claim 4 corresponds to the patent claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Denoual et al (US 2018/0013845).
Regarding claim 1, Denoual (845) discloses a client which receives streaming data according to Moving Picture Experts Group-Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (MPEG- 5 DASH) standard, the client (client device 380 and 310 in Figures 3a-3b) comprising:
a transmitter (element 385 and 311) which transmits a Media Presentation Description (MPD), request to a server (¶ [0517], ¶ [0528], ¶ [0544] and ¶ [0639]); and
a receiver (element 386 and 311) which receives an MPD (¶ [0518], ¶ [0529] and ¶ [0640]-[0641]), wherein
the MPD request contains a push directive (¶ [0528], ¶ [0544] and ¶ [0639]) specifying whether or not an initialization segment is to be transmitted by push from the server (¶ [0554]-[0556] and ¶ [0593]-[0596] for the push directive of “push-none” type specifying the client does not want a server to push anything; and ¶ [0557] and ¶ [0634] for indicating in its initial request of MPD the client’s request for only initialization segment but not the media segments), and
the push directive includes (i) first information indicating that the initialization segment is to be transmitted by push and (ii) second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server (¶ [0324], ¶ [0609]-[0610] and ¶ [0650]-[0655] for the push directive includes push type information and parameters; ¶ [0571]-[0580] and ¶ [0650]-[0654] for in the case of the fast-start push type, the push directive includes both information indicating that (i) the initialization segment and (ii) video segments are to be transmitted by push, and using associated parameters to indicate quantity, quality level or a resolution of video segments; and ¶ [0557] and ¶ [0634] for in its initial request of the MPD indicating the client’s request for only initialization segment but not the media segments).
Regarding claim 2, Denoual (845) discloses a server which transmits streaming data according to Moving Picture Experts Group-Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (MPEG-DASH) standard, the server (server 350 and 300 in Figures 3a-3b) comprising:
a receiver (element 357 and 320) which receives a Media Presentation Description (MPD) request from a client (¶ [0529]-[0531], ¶ [0545] and ¶ [0640]-[0642]; and
a transmitter (element 359 and 320) which transmits an MPD (¶ [0517], ¶ [0533], ¶ [0545] and ¶ [0640]-[0642]), wherein
the MPD request contains a push directive (¶ [0528], ¶ [0544] and ¶ [0639]) specifying whether or not an initialization segment is to be transmitted by push from the server (¶ [0554]-[0556] and ¶ [0593]-[0596] for the push directive of “push-none” type specifying the client does not want a server to push anything; and ¶ [0557] and ¶ [0634] for indicating in its initial request of MPD the client’s request for only initialization segment but not the media segments), and
the push directive includes (i) first information indicating that the initialization segment is to be transmitted by push and (ii) second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server (¶ [0324], ¶ [0609]-[0610] and ¶ [0650]-[0655] for the push directive includes push type information and parameters; and ¶ [0571]-[0580] and ¶ [0650]-[0654] for in the case of the fast-start push type, the push directive includes both information indicating that (i) the initialization segment and (ii) video segments are to be transmitted by push, and using associated parameters to indicate quantity, quality level or a resolution of video segments; and ¶ [0557] and ¶ [0634] for in its initial request of the MPD indicating the client’s request for only initialization segment but not the media segments).
Regarding claims 3-4, all limitations of claims 3-4 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claims 1-2 respectively.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Denoual et al (US 2017/0230442).
Regarding claim 1, Denoual (442) discloses a client which receives streaming data according to Moving Picture Experts Group-Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (MPEG- 5 DASH) standard, the client (client device 380 and 310 in Figures 3a-3b) comprising:
a transmitter (element 385 and 311) which transmits a Media Presentation Description (MPD) request to a server (¶ [0370], ¶ [0381], ¶ [0397] and ¶ [0534]); and
a receiver (element 386 and 311) which receives an MPD (¶ [0371], ¶ [0382], ¶ [0398] and ¶ [0535]-[0536]), wherein
the MPD request contains a push directive (¶ [0381] and ¶ [0397]) specifying whether or not an initialization segment is to be transmitted by push from the server (¶ [0450] for in the case of the MPD request containing the fast-start push directive, the push directive includes associated parameters explicitly indicating whether the initialization segments being pushed), and
the push directive includes (i) first information indicating that the initialization segment is to be transmitted by push and (ii) second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server (¶ [0450]-[0451] for the push directive includes specific and distinct parameters indicating (i) the initialization segment and (ii) video segments are to be transmitted by push from a server; and ¶ [0412] and ¶ [0529] for in its initial request of the MPD, indicating the client’s request for only initialization segment but not the media segments).
Regarding claim 2, Denoual (442) discloses a server which transmits streaming data according to Moving Picture Experts Group-Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (MPEG-DASH) standard, the server (server 350 and 300 in Figures 3a-3b) comprising:
a receiver (element 357 and 320) which receives a Media Presentation Description (MPD) request from a client (¶ [0370], ¶ [0381], ¶ [0397] and ¶ [0534]); and
a transmitter (element 359 and 320) which transmits an MPD (¶ [0371], ¶ [0382], ¶ [0398] and ¶ [0535]-[0536]), wherein
the MPD request contains a push directive (¶ [0381] and ¶ [0397]) specifying whether or not an initialization segment is to be transmitted by push from the server (¶ [0450] for in the case of the MPD request containing the fast-start push directive, the push directive includes associated parameters explicitly indicating whether the initialization segments being pushed), and
the push directive includes (i) first information indicating that the initialization segment is to be transmitted by push and (ii) second information indicating whether or not a media segment is to be transmitted by push from the server (¶ [0450]-[0451] for the push directive includes specific and distinct parameters indicating (i) the initialization segment and (ii) video segments are to be transmitted by push from a server; and ¶ [0412] and ¶ [0529] for in its initial request of the MPD, indicating the client’s request for only initialization segment but not the media segments).
Regarding claims 3-4, all limitations of claims 3-4 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claims 1-2 respectively.
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 GIGI L DUBASKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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.
/GIGI L DUBASKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights