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 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Stockhammer does not teach “transmitting a plurality of media data files in a single message”. To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. Stockhammer discloses transmitting a MPD, a MPD is a single message comprising a plurality media data files (figure 3, paragraph 91-95), figure 3 shows the structure of a MPD comprising multiple media data files (representations 124, header data 126 and segments 128), meeting all the claim language.
Applicant also argues that there is no indication that a plurality of media files are to be transmitted in a single message. To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. Requesting a MPD its an indication that a plurality of files are going to be transmitted in a single message (figure 3, paragraph 91-95 and 243), meeting the claim language. Further the only example given for such an indication in the specification is an http header which is also disclose by Stockhammer (paragraph 35, 69, 168-169, 213, 223, 234 and 246), meeting the claim language.
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 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 1-2, 7-9, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stockhammer et al., US 2018/0316740.
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 18, Stockhammer discloses an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
transmitting, at a first device and to a second device, a request for at least one media data file, the request comprising a first indication indicating that a plurality of media data files are to be transmitted in a single message (paragraph 36-40 and 243); and
receiving the plurality of media data files in the single message from the second device (paragraph 36-40 and 243).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Stockhammer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one media data file comprises a multimedia presentation description (MPD), and the plurality of media data files comprise at least one of the following: the MPD, an initialization segment (IS), or a media segment (MS), or wherein the single message comprises a second indication indicating a file type of one of the plurality of media data files (paragraph 40).
Regarding claim 7, Stockhammer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining whether the single message comprises an eighth indication indicating that the plurality of media data files are transmitted in the single message; and in accordance with a determination that the single message comprises the eighth indication, obtaining the plurality of media data files by parsing the single message (paragraph 117-120).
Regarding claims 8, 19 and 20, Stockhammer discloses an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
receiving, at a second device and from a first device, a request for at least one media data file, the request comprising a first indication indicating that a plurality of media data files are to be transmitted in a single message (paragraph 36-40 and 243); and
transmitting the plurality of media data files in the single message to the first device (paragraph 36-40 and 243).
Regarding claim 15, Stockhammer discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the single message comprises a second indication indicating a file type of one of the plurality of media data files, or wherein the single message comprises a set of indications for constructing a file identifier of a first media data file in the plurality of media data files (paragraph 41 and 96).
Regarding claim 16, Stockhammer discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the file identifier is a uniform resource locator (URL), or wherein the set of indications comprise at least one of the following: a third indication indicating a representation identity (ID) identifier of the first media data file, a fourth indication indicating a number identifier of the first media data file, a fifth indication indicating a time identifier of the first media data file, a sixth indication indicating a bandwidth identifier of the first media data file, or a seventh indication indicating a sub number identifier of the first media data file, or wherein the first indication, the second indication and the set of indications are HTTP headers (paragraph 40).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claim 3-6 and 10-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Stockhammer in view of Wang et al., US 2014/0201334.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Stockhammer discloses the method of claim 1.
Stockhammer is silent about receiving the plurality of media data files in a multipurpose internet mail extensions (MIME) message.
In an analogous art, Wang discloses receiving the plurality of media data files in a multipurpose internet mail extensions (MIME) message (paragraph 53).
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 Stockhammer’s method with the teachings of Wang. The motivation would have been to use MIME messages for the benefit of allowing providing different types of content to users.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Stockhammer and Wang disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the MIME message comprises a plurality of parts, each part comprising one of the plurality of media data files (Wang paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 5, Stockhammer discloses the method of claim 1.
Stockhammer is silent about the single message comprises a set of indications for constructing a file identifier of a first media data file in the plurality of media data files.
In an analogous art, Wang discloses the single message comprises a set of indications for constructing a file identifier of a first media data file in the plurality of media data files (paragraph 53).
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 Stockhammer’s method with the teachings of Wang. The motivation would have been to use MIME messages for the benefit of allowing providing different types of content to users.
Regarding claim 6, Stockhammer and Wang disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the file identifier is a uniform resource locator (URL), or wherein the set of indications comprise at least one of the following: a third indication indicating a representation identity (ID) identifier of the first media data file, a fourth indication indicating a number identifier of the first media data file, a fifth indication indicating a time identifier of the first media data file, a sixth indication indicating a bandwidth identifier of the first media data file, or a seventh indication indicating a sub number identifier of the first media data file, or wherein the first indication, the second indication and the set of indications are hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) headers (Stockhammer paragraph 40; Wang paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 12, Stockhammer discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: determining whether a second media data file in the plurality of media data files is available at the second device; in accordance with a determination that the second media data file is available at the second device, generating the single message based on the second media data file (paragraph 6-9, 67 161 and 167).
Stockhammer is silent about in accordance with a determination that the second media data file is unavailable at the second device, transmitting a request for the second media data file to a third device to which the second media data file is available, receiving a response comprising the second media data file from the third device, and generating the single message based on the second media data file.
In an analogous art, Wang discloses in accordance with a determination that the second media data file is unavailable at the second device, transmitting a request for the second media data file to a third device to which the second media data file is available, receiving a response comprising the second media data file from the third device, and generating the single message based on the second media data file (paragraph 38-45).
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 Stockhammer’s method with the teachings of Wang. The motivation would have been to deliver the complete content for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Regarding claim 13, Stockhammer and Wang disclose the method of claim 12, wherein the response further comprises a ninth indication indicating a set of media data files comprising the plurality of media data files, or wherein the response further comprises a tenth indication indicating a file type of the second media data file, or the response further comprises an eleventh indication for constructing a file identifier of the second media data file (Stockhammer paragraph 40-41 and 96).
Regarding claim 14, Stockhammer discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the ninth indication is an HTTP header, and the HTTP header comprises file identifiers of the set of media data files, or wherein the plurality of media data files are included in the single message in an order indicated in the ninth indication (Stockhammer paragraph 35, 69 and 168-169).
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights