DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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 with respect to the claims have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Although a new grounds of rejection has been used to address additional limitations that have been added to the claims, a response is considered necessary for several of Applicant's arguments since reference Zhou (US 2021/0160167) will continue to be used to meet several claimed limitations.
On pages 6-7 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues (regarding the prior art of Zhou) that allowing OTT ABR into the data processing system of Zhou would destroy its intended purpose and/or principle of operation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is initially noted that while Applicant asserts that such a combination would destroy the intended purpose and/or principle of operation of Zhou, Applicant has not pointed to anything or given any specific reasoning as to why such combination would. The Examiner also notes that the primary reference of Zhou discloses use of network congestion processing for transmission, such as adapting the transmission(s) based on the priorities of the data and congestion(s) of the network (see Zhou; pages 13-14, paragraphs 157-160) as well as providing quality of service (see Zhou; page 12, paragraph 138). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Zhou with prior art relating to OTT ABR, to provide greater bandwidth/congestion control and adaptation for better quality of service.
Any of Applicant’s additional remarks not explicitly addressed by the Examiner, are considered moot in view of the Examiner’s above reply and/or the grounds/citations provided in the current office action below.
Applicant is suggested to provide more detail as to what they believe constitutes the true invention of the application. This could help distinguish over the prior art of record, alleviate misinterpretation issues, and serve to move prosecution forward on the application in a more expedited manner.
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 1-5, 8, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al., US 2021/0160167 in view of Leal, US 2023/0246808 and further in view of Grois et al., US 2023/0088688.
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses a method comprising: determining, at a content delivery network (CDN) (with CDN element(s); page 8, paragraph 90, and page 9, paragraph 105, including at least a server; Fig. 5, see “CDN server”, and page 9, paragraph 105), whether a quantification of a fragment of a segment of the content to encapsulate and transport the fragment satisfies a threshold (determining whether a size, i.e. sum of bit values, for a packet, satisfies a threshold; page 8, paragraph 96, and page 10, paragraph 112, and page 13, paragraphs 156-157, and wherein the packet(s) are considered fragments of segments as they can contain frame data relating to particular content/segments; page 11, paragraph 135, and wherein for encapsulating and sending/transmitting; page 2, paragraph 13, and page 10, paragraph 108, and page 12, paragraphs 137 and 142); and
based at least in part on determining that the quantification of the fragment to encapsulate and transport the fragment satisfies the threshold, causing to provide preferential encapsulation and transport of the fragment to a client device (if size, i.e. sum of bit values, for a packet, satisfies a threshold, can provide for preferential scheduling, including encapsulating and sending/transmitting; page 8, paragraph 96, and page 10, paragraphs 108 and 112, and page 13, paragraphs 156-157, and page 2, paragraph 13, and, and page 12, paragraphs 137 and 142).
Zhou does not explicitly disclose a CDN edge node; and
transport as part of an over-the-top (OTT) adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming session, wherein the OTT ABR streaming session is a pull model.
In a related art, Leal does disclose a CDN edge node (server on edge of the CDN; Fig. 1, elements 110 and 130, and page 2, paragraph 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Zhou and Leal by allowing specific CDN elements/arrangement to be utilized in the already present CDN of Zhou, in order to provide an improved system and method for multimedia content streaming and, more specifically, to packaging multimedia content for low latency streaming (Leal; page 1, paragraph 1).
While Zhou in view of Leal does disclose transport as part of an adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming session (Leal; related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming; page 2, paragraph 16), Zhou in view of Leal does not explicitly disclose an over-the-top (OTT) adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming session, wherein the OTT ABR streaming session is a pull model.
In a related art, Grois does disclose an over-the-top (OTT) adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming session (OTT adaptive bitrate streaming session(s); page 1, paragraph 11, and page 3, paragraph 24), wherein the OTT ABR streaming session is a pull model (the streaming scheme is “pulling” the content, i.e. a pull model; page 1, paragraph 12, and again with specific requests for the OTT ABR content, i.e. pulling; page 3, paragraph 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Zhou, Leal, and Grois by allowing particular networks and/or communication protocols/strategies to be utilized with the already present CDNs and controls disclosed in Zhou in view of Leal, in order to provide an improved system and method for ABR streaming and output enabling a playback device to maximize the perceived video quality of received content, provide substantially constant visual quality, and/or minimize rebuffering content (Grois; page 1, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou in view of Leal and Grois discloses based at least in part on determining that the quantification of the fragment to encapsulate and transport the fragment does not satisfy the threshold, causing to provide default encapsulation and transport of the fragment to the client device as part of the OTT ABR streaming session (Zhou; if packet is not a high-bit-value packet, i.e. relating to threshold, and being a common packet, system will not utilize preferential treatment, and will encapsulate and send with network not utilized for high-bit-value packet(s); page 12, paragraphs 137, 142, and 144, and Leal; related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming; page 2, paragraph 16, and Grois; OTT adaptive bitrate streaming session(s); page 1, paragraph 11, and page 3, paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou in view of Leal and Grois discloses the quantification comprises a size of the fragment (Zhou; relating to a size, i.e. sum of bit values, for a packet; page 8, paragraph 96, and page 10, paragraph 112, and page 13, paragraphs 156-157).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou in view of Leal and Grois discloses determining, at a parser of the CDN edge node, the size of the fragment (Leal; determining by reading/parsing data, a particular size for the data portion; page 5, paragraphs 39 and 41, and again with server on edge of the CDN; Fig. 1, elements 110 and 130, and page 2, paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou in view of Leal and Grois discloses determining, at a parser of an OTT ABR segment encryption system, the size of the fragment (Leal; determining by reading/parsing data, a particular size for the data portion; page 5, paragraphs 39 and 41, and wherein with server that includes encryption elements/components, i.e. encryption system; page 5, paragraph 43, and Fig. 1, element 110, and is related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming; page 2, paragraph 16, and Grois; OTT adaptive bitrate streaming session(s); page 1, paragraph 11, and page 3, paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou in view of Leal and Grois discloses the CDN edge node comprises the OTT ABR segment encryption system (Leal; with server on edge of the CDN; Fig. 1, elements 110 and 130, and page 2, paragraph 14, and wherein server that includes encryption elements/components, i.e. encryption system; page 5, paragraph 43, and Fig. 1, element 110, and is related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming; page 2, paragraph 1, and Grois; OTT adaptive bitrate streaming session(s); page 1, paragraph 11, and page 3, paragraph 24).
Claim 21, which discloses an edge node, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 1 and 4.
Claim 22, which discloses an edge node, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2.
Claim 23, which discloses an edge node, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claim 24, which discloses an edge node, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Claim 25, which discloses an edge node, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Regarding claim 26, Zhou in view of Leal and Grois discloses the OTT ABR segment encryption system includes an encryptor operatively connected to the parser (Leal; determining by reading/parsing data, a particular size for the data portion; page 5, paragraphs 39 and 41, and wherein with server that includes encryption elements/components, i.e. encryption system; page 5, paragraph 43, and Fig. 1, element 110, and is related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming; page 2, paragraph 16, and Grois; OTT adaptive bitrate streaming session(s); page 1, paragraph 11, and page 3, paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 27, Zhou in view of Leal and Grois discloses the encryptor receives the size of the fragment from the parser, and the encryptor causes an encrypted Common Media Application Format (CMAF) segment size to be sent to a threshold calculator of the CDN edge node (Leal; determining by reading/parsing data, a particular size for the data portion; page 5, paragraphs 39 and 41, and wherein with server, i.e. edge node, that includes encryption elements/components, i.e. encryption system; page 5, paragraph 43, and Fig. 1, element 110, and sending once in CMAF; page 2, paragraphs 17-19, and Zhou; determining whether a size, i.e. sum of bit values with a threshold type calculator, for a packet, satisfies a threshold; page 8, paragraph 96, and page 10, paragraph 112, and page 13, paragraphs 156-157).
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al., US 2021/0160167 in view of Leal, US 2023/0246808 and Grois et al., US 2023/0088688, and further in view of Jarvi et al., US 2017/0237794.
Regarding claim 6, Zhou in view of Leal and Grois discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 5, as well as the OTT ABR segment encryption system, a content source of the content, a CDN, and the client device (Zhou; with at least source device(s); page 1, paragraph 10, and page 5, paragraph 63, and CDN/server; page 8, paragraph 90, and page 9, paragraph 105, and target/client device(s); page 1, paragraph 10, and page 5, paragraph 63, and Leal; with server that includes encryption elements/components, i.e. encryption system; page 5, paragraph 43, and Fig. 1, element 110, and is related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming; page 2, paragraph 16, and with CDN; Fig. 1, element 130, and page 2, paragraphs 14-15, and server/source; Fig. 1, element 110, and page 2, paragraphs 14-15, and with client device(s); Fig. 1, elements 140, and page 2, paragraphs 14-15, and Grois; OTT adaptive bitrate streaming session(s); page 1, paragraph 11, and page 3, paragraph 24).
Zhou in view of Leal and Grois does not explicitly disclose an encryption system is operatively connected between a content source and a CDN origin, and the CDN origin is operatively connected between the encryption system and a client device.
In a related art, Jarvi does disclose an encryption system is operatively connected between a content source and a CDN origin (encryption element/system is between content source/storage and Origin server of the CDN; Fig. 6, element 612, 608, and 606, and page 7, paragraph 59), and the CDN origin is operatively connected between the encryption system and a client device (Origin server of the CDN is between the encryption element/system and the client device(s); Fig. 6, elements 608, 606, and 602, and page 7, paragraph 59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Zhou, Leal, Grois, and Jarvi by allowing a specific arrangement of the system/devices already disclosed in Zhou in view of Leal and Grois, in order to provide an improved system and method for network-based content or media processing which improves customer satisfaction by alleviating errors and interruptions for network-based content playback (Jarvi; page 1, paragraphs 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou in view of Leal, Grois, and Jarvi discloses the OTT ABR segment encryption system comprises an encryptor operatively connected to the parser, the encryptor receives the size of the fragment from the parser, and the encryptor causes Common Media Application Format (CMAF) video and audio segment's fragment byte offsets metadata to be sent to at least one of a CDN origin, a CDN, and the CDN edge node (Leal; with server that includes encryption elements/components, i.e. encryption system; page 5, paragraph 43, and Fig. 1, element 110, and is related to adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming; page 2, paragraph 16, and sending for encryption; page 5, paragraph 42, and wherein with CMAF, including offset metadata; page 2, paragraphs 17-18, and for streaming, i.e. with at least the CDN; Fig. 1, element 130, and page 2, paragraphs 14-15, and Jarvi; including Origin server of CDN, and CDN; Fig. 6, elements 606 and 604, and page 7, paragraph 59, and Grois; OTT adaptive bitrate streaming session(s); page 1, paragraph 11, and page 3, paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou in view of Leal and Grois discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 8, as well as the CDN edge node comprises an encryptor operatively connected to the parser, the encryptor receives the size of the fragment from the parser, and the encryptor sends an encrypted Common Media Application Format (CMAF) segment's fragment size to a threshold calculator of the CDN edge node (Leal; determining by reading/parsing data, a particular size for the data portion; page 5, paragraphs 39 and 41, and wherein with server, i.e. edge node, that includes encryption elements/components, i.e. encryption system; page 5, paragraph 43, and Fig. 1, element 110, and sending once in CMAF; page 2, paragraphs 17-19, and Zhou; determining whether a size, i.e. sum of bit values with a threshold type calculator, for a packet, satisfies a threshold; page 8, paragraph 96, and page 10, paragraph 112, and page 13, paragraphs 156-157).
Zhou in view of Leal and Grois does not explicitly disclose an HTTP server of a CDN edge node.
In a related art, Jarvi does disclose an HTTP server of a CDN edge node (including HTTP server(s); page 6, paragraph 53, and with edge specific server(s); page 9, paragraph 71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Zhou, Leal, Grois, and Jarvi by allowing a specific arrangement of the system/devices already disclosed in Zhou in view of Leal and Grois, in order to provide an improved system and method for network-based content or media processing which improves customer satisfaction by alleviating errors and interruptions for network-based content playback (Jarvi; page 1, paragraphs 1 and 6).
Claims 10 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al., US 2021/0160167 in view of Leal, US 2023/0246808 and Grois et al., US 2023/0088688, and further in view of Potluri et al., US 2024/0380702.
Regarding claim 10, Zhou in view of Leal and Grois discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as the preferential encapsulation and transport of the fragment (Zhou; can provide for preferential scheduling, including encapsulating and sending/transmitting; page 8, paragraph 96, and page 10, paragraphs 108 and 112, and page 13, paragraphs 156-157, and page 2, paragraph 13, and, and page 12, paragraphs 137 and 142).
Zhou in view of Leal and Grois does not explicitly disclose operations comprise tagging a fragment for a low latency, low loss, and scalable throughput (L4S) service.
In a related art, Potluri does disclose operations comprise tagging a fragment for a low latency, low loss, and scalable throughput (L4S) service (traffic/packets can be marked, i.e. tagged, for L4S; page 1, paragraph 14, and page 2, paragraph 18, and page 3, paragraph 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Zhou, Leal, Grois, and Potluri by allowing markings/indications of L4S packets/fragments, in order to provide an improved system and method for reducing latency and congestion problems in networking environments (Potluri; page 1, paragraph 11).
Claim 30, which discloses an edge node, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 10.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al., US 2021/0160167 in view of Leal, US 2023/0246808 and Grois et al., US 2023/0088688, and further in view of Ramakrishnan et al., US 11,212,595.
Regarding claim 28, Zhou in view of Leal and Grois discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 25, as well as the CDN edge node (Leal; server on edge of the CDN; Fig. 1, elements 110 and 130, and page 2, paragraph 14).
Zhou in view of Leal and Grois does not explicitly disclose an edge node comprises a decryptor.
In a related art, Ramakrishnan does disclose a CDN edge node comprises a decryptor (CDN edge type node can contain a decryption unit, i.e. decryptor; Fig. 1, elements 128 and 130, and col. 8, lines 26-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Zhou, Leal, Grois, and Ramakrishnan by allowing a specific arrangement and elements to be included with the system/devices already disclosed in Zhou in view of Leal and Grois, in order to provide an improved system and method for embedding user session based imperceptible or perceptible watermarks for content delivered in a video delivery platform (Ramakrishnan; col. 1, lines 15-21).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al., US 2021/0160167 in view of Leal, US 2023/0246808 and Grois et al., US 2023/0088688, and further in view of Ramakrishnan et al., US 11,212,595 and Jarvi et al., US 2017/0237794.
Regarding claim 29, Zhou in view of Leal, Grois, and Ramakrishnan discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 28, as well as the CDN edge node comprises an encryptor operatively connected to the parser, the encryptor receives the size of the fragment from the parser, and the encryptor sends an encrypted Common Media Application Format (CMAF) segment's fragment size to a threshold calculator of the CDN edge node (Leal; determining by reading/parsing data, a particular size for the data portion; page 5, paragraphs 39 and 41, and wherein with server, i.e. edge node, that includes encryption elements/components, i.e. encryption system; page 5, paragraph 43, and Fig. 1, element 110, and sending once in CMAF; page 2, paragraphs 17-19, and Zhou; determining whether a size, i.e. sum of bit values with a threshold type calculator, for a packet, satisfies a threshold; page 8, paragraph 96, and page 10, paragraph 112, and page 13, paragraphs 156-157).
Zhou in view of Leal, Grois, and Ramakrishnan does not explicitly disclose an HTTP server of a CDN edge node.
In a related art, Jarvi does disclose an HTTP server of a CDN edge node (including HTTP server(s); page 6, paragraph 53, and with edge specific server(s); page 9, paragraph 71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Zhou, Leal, Grois, Ramakrishnan, and Jarvi by allowing a specific arrangement of the system/devices already disclosed in Zhou in view of Leal, Grois, and Ramakrishnan, in order to provide an improved system and method for network-based content or media processing which improves customer satisfaction by alleviating errors and interruptions for network-based content playback (Jarvi; page 1, paragraphs 1 and 6).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424