DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection discussed below.
Claims 7-10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues the explicitly cited threshold in paragraph [0035] pertains to the display of catch-up options and not to the decision to display or not the “Not Live” information. The “Not Live” indicator is generated when the playback lags behind the live stream” with two position bars, specifically when they “are not aligned together”. There is no time comparison condition applied to this indicator for its display. It always appears when the segment is not a live stream. Furthermore, Gupta deal with a live stream with a lag, featuring a “current position bar” in a continuous stream, rather than with rebroadcasting a recording. It does not specially and explicitly disclose access to a “content recorded and having been broadcast live”, or the section of a “rebroadcast instant for the recorded content” as per the request. Therefore, Gupta does not unambiguously disclose that the additional of a datum representative of the “recorded content rebroadcast” depends on an instant exceeding “a given time”. Indeed, in Gupta, “Not Live” indicator 101 is always rendered if there is a la. In consequence, Gupta does not disclose “during a rendering of the recorded content rebroadcast, a datum representative of the reading of recorded content if the time between a current broadcasting instant and a rebroadcasting instant for the recorded content is greater than a given time” (page 8). This argument is respectfully traversed.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Gupta does not specially and explicitly disclose access to a “content recorded and having been broadcast live”, or the section of a “rebroadcast instant for the recorded content” as per the request, Examiner notices that Gupta discloses during live content, the content that is missed, not played back in live is cached or stored at a content source and retrieved for playing back. The content source provides the cached/recorded content for playing back upon request when a la of playback is detected (see include, but are not limited to, paragraphs 0012-0013, 0035, 0044, 0081, 0132, and its fully incorporated by reference U.S 7,761,892: figures 4-5, 18a, 27-31). Thus, the content played back that is not live content is cached or recorded content of previously broadcast live. “the recorded content rebroadcast” is read on previous cached or recorded content and provided from the source that cached or recorded content.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Not Live” indicator is generated when the playback “lags behind the live stream” when the two position bars “are not aligned together”. There is no time comparison condition applied to this indicator for its display. It always appears when the segment is not a live stream, Examiner respectively disagrees.
Firstly, as Applicant pointed out that the “Not Live” indicator is generated when the playback “lags behind the live stream” with two position bars specifically when they are “are not aligned together”. In order to determine whether playback “lags behind the live stream” and the bars of current playback position and current live position “are not aligned together” to generate the “not live” indicator, a comparison must be made. If “there is no time comparison applied” as argued by Applicant, how can the playback “lags behind the live stream” or the positions of current playback and current live “are not aligned together” be determined?
Secondly, the “Not Live” indicator described in Gupta reference is just a term provided as an example for indicating of playback content is not live content. The claims neither recites the term “Not Live”. Instead, amended claim 1 recites “a datum representative of the read mode access of the recorded content…” . Thus, the claim “datum representative” recited in the claim could be read on any data representing of read/playback of the recorded (not live) content in response to lag time between the content broadcast live and current playback position.
Thirdly, Gupta discloses when playing of the content item lags behind the live streaming of the content item, the streaming application identifies a duration of the lag (e.g., two minutes) from a manifest of the content (see paragraphs 0012-0013). Upon detecting a lag, the streaming application may display the user selectable options 204, 206, 210, which can be selected via user input. In some embodiments, the streaming application displays user selectable options 204, 206, 210, only when the lag is enough (e.g., when it exceeds a certain threshold, for example, when it’s longer than 1 minute or longer than 5 minutes). Upon selecting a “Stop live” option, the streamlining application may keep playing the content without ever catching up to live. As a result, the user will permanently remain behind the live streaming. The live status indicator 101 indicates whether a segment that is currently presented on user device 102 is a real time stream (i.e., live segment). Live status indicator indicates that segment 104 is not a live stream (by showing “Not live” (see for example, paragraphs 0033-0035, 0090, figures 1-2). Gupta also discloses while catching up, the streaming application display a live status bar 301 which indicates “catching up to live” is in progress. The “Catching Up to live” progress can also be shown by a progress bard 308. The streaming application changes live status bar 401 from “Caching up to Live” to “Live” when the content is catching up to live. In some embodiment, the live status bar 401 includes a count-up or count-down countdown timer (see figures 3-4, paragraphs 0039-0040). Thus, Gupta discloses all limitations recited in amended claim 1 including “during a rendering of the recorded content rebroadcast, a datum representative of the reading of recorded content if the time between a current broadcasting instant and a rebroadcasting instant for the recorded content is greater than a given time” (interpreted as during displaying/playback of the recorded/cached content provided from a source/address where the cached/recorded content is located, a data such as “not live”, “catching up to live”, or any data with options 204, 208, 210, representative or indicating of the reading/playing back of recorded/cached/not live content in response to determine a time duration of the lag between a current broadcasting instant 112/312 of content broadcast live and a current playing back position 110/310 for the cached/recorded/not live content when the lag is enough (e.g., when it exceeds a certain threshold, for example, when it’s longer than 1 minute or longer than 5 minutes or any threshold that is used to consider a lag).
For the reasons given above, rejections of claims 1-6 are analyzed as discussed below.
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 (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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gupta et al. (US 20220182724 A1).
Note: any documents that is directly or indirectly incorporated by references in its entirety in Gupta (see for example, paragraph 0132) including Patent No. 7761892 (referred to as Ellis) is treated as part of the specification of Gupta (see MPEP 2163.07 b).
Regarding claim 1, Gupta discloses a management method for managing reading by a reading device of a content recorded on a data medium (managing reading by a reading device such as user equipment of a content recorded on a storage – see include, but are not limited to, figure 14-15), wherein the method is implemented by the reading device (the method is implemented by a playback device) and comprises:
upon a read mode access by the reading device to the content recorded on the data medium and having been broadcast live, requesting to render, during a rendering of the recorded content rebroadcast, a datum representative of the read mode access of the recorded content, in response to a time between a current broadcasting instant of the content broadcast live and a rebroadcasting instant for the recorded content being greater than a given time (in response to reading mode for playing back content by a user device to content recorded/cached on a cache/storage medium and have been broadcast live, requesting to render/present/display, during rendering/displaying/playing back of the recorded/recorded content provided from recorded location/source, data with value, segment information, timestamp, options, etc. representative/indicating of the read mode access/play back mode of the recorded content in response to a lag time between a current broadcasting instant of the content broadcast live (live segment location 112/312) and the current playback position for the recorded/cached content being greater than or exceeding a certain threshold, for example, when it’s longer than 1 minute or longer than 5 minutes – see discussion in “response to arguments” above, and include, but are not limited to, paragraphs 0033-0035, 0036, 0040, 0090, 0132, figures 1-2, 4, 9, 11-14 and Ellis: figures 4-5, 18a, 27-31).
Regarding claim 2, Gupta discloses the management method according to Claim 1, wherein the datum representative of a reading of the content rebroadcast is included in a received data stream corresponding to the content (metadata included in a received data stream such as timestamp, segment information, location, etc. of a reading of the content rebroadcast/provided is included in the received data stream corresponding to the content – see include, but are not limited to, figures 5-7, 9-13, paragraphs 0043, 0063; Ellis: figures 4-5, 18a, 27-31).
Regarding claim 3, Gupta discloses the management method according to Claim 1, wherein the datum representative of a reading of the recorded content is added by the reading device (the data timestamp, segment information, time duration to catch up live content, etc. representative of a reading of recorded content at particular point, duration, skip segment, etc. is added by the user device – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1-2, 4, 9-11, paragraphs 0033, 0035-0036, 0040; Ellis: figures 4-5, 18a-18d, 27-31) .
Regarding claim 4, Gupta discloses the management method according to Claim 1, wherein the given time is included in a received data stream corresponding to the recorded content (given time of certain threshold/duration is included in a received data stream corresponding to the recorded content – see include, but are not limited to, figures 2, 9-11, paragraphs 0035, 0040, 0079, 0089-0090; Ellis: figures 4-5, 18a, 27-31).
Regarding claim 5, limitations of a reading device that correspond to the method of claim 1 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Particularly, Gupta discloses the reading device for reading a content recorded on a data medium, wherein the reading device comprises: a processor configured to, upon a read mode access by the reading device to a content recorded and having been broadcast live, request a rendering, during a rendering of the recorded content rebroadcast, of a datum representative of the read mode access of the recorded content in response to a time between a current broadcasting instant of the content broadcast live and a rebroadcasting instant for the recorded content being greater than a given time (see discussion in the rejection of claim 1 and figure 14, paragraphs 0035, 0090, 0132, 0119-0122; Ellis: figures 4-5, 7, 9, 18a, 27-31).
Regarding claim 6, limitations of a non-transitory computer readable medium that correspond to limitations of claim 1 and/or claim 5 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and/or claim 5. Particularly, Gupta non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon which when executed by a processor, carries out the method defined in Claim 1 (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 1 and/or claim 5; Ellis: figures 4-5, 7, 9, 18a, 27-31, claims 3, 8-9).
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 AN SON PHI HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7295. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-6:30 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, NASSER M. GOODARZI can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/AN SON P HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
March 16, 2026