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 .
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 03/23/2026.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner has acknowledged the amended claims 1, 10, and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Oyman merely discusses receiving metric and status messages and modifying streaming media content based on the received metric and status messages-this is materially different than what is claimed. Oyman is silent with respect to receiving feedback content corresponding to a loopback version of streamed content as claimed in amended Claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument because the specification fails to specifically disclose the limitations as recited in the claims. The Examiner has rejected the claims since there is no support for the added limitations in the independent claims. See rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 17, the limitation of “ the feedback content corresponding to a loopback version of the streamed content” is not disclosed. It has not been described in the specification how such limitation is taken place. Therefore, one skilled in the art would not know how to make and/or use the invention. The Examiner is kindly requested to the Applicant to show where such limitation is being disclosed/described in the specification.
Claims 2 – 9, 11 – 16, and 18 – 20 are necessarily rejected as being dependent upon the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 17.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 17, the limitation of “rendering, by the media application, a modified version of content based on the determination” is not clear. It is not clear to the Examiner that whether such rendering is for the streamed content or the feedback content. It is kindly suggested to clarify such limitation.
Claims 2 – 9, 11 – 16, and 18 – 20 are necessarily rejected as being dependent upon the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 17.
The Examiner has not given any patentable weight to the added limitation in the claims since there is not support for it in the specification.
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.
(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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ozgur Oyman (US 10,701,119; hereinafter Oyman).
Regarding claim 1, Oyman discloses a method comprising:
streaming, by a media application, content for a first device (1302, fig. 13; abstract; col.6, line 61 through col. 7, line 13 ; Oyman discloses that the delivery of the streaming media content, or the streaming media content during the delivery to the client device via the media path 234 controlled via the media path interface component 212);
receiving, by the media application, in response to the content streamed for the first device, feedback content (1304, fig. 13; col. 6, line 61 through col. 7, line 3; Oyman discloses that the content adaptation component 214 can generate a modification of a media presentation of a sequence of segments, the delivery of the streaming media content);
analyzing, by the media application, the feedback content, and determining content characteristics (1404, fig. 14; col. 7, lines 3 – 5; col. 10, line 56 through col. 11, line 6; Oyman discloses that the modification to the streaming content can be based on the metric and status messages received via the client-to-DANE interface component 216, which in turn can also be at least partially a function of parameters messages communicated to the DASH client 206).
determining, by the media application, whether to modify the streamed content or the feedback content when rendering for the first device (1406, fig. 14; col. 7, lines 5 – 34; col. 11, lines 6 – 16; Oyman discloses that processes for assessing metrics and status messages, as well as data from PED messages and PER messages can be operated to determine what modification of the streaming content (e.g., structure, codecs, encoding, configurations, transcoding operations, media versions, segment boundaries, etc.) can be utilized to still meet the demands and capabilities of the DASH client 206 for QoE of the user.); and
rendering, by the media application, a modified version of content based on the amplify determination (1408, fig. 14; col. 8, lines 1 – 22,, col. 10, lines 25 - 42; Oyman discloses that these indications in the PER messages can server to provide which parameters are available for adjustment to affect the modification of the streaming media content via link 234 to the DASH client 206).
Regarding claim 2, Oyman discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
amplifying the streamed content when the determination indicates to modify the streamed content (col. 8, lines 32 – 48; Oyman discloses that the quality of service parameters can comprise one or more of a guaranteed bit rate, a maximum bit rate, a delay time, and a packet loss. The transcoding parameters can comprise one or more indications, of a codec parameter, a bandwidth, a frame rate, a Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) type, a height for vertical rendering of the streaming media content, and a width for horizontal rendering of the streaming media content ); and
rendering the modified version of content comprising the amplified streamed content (col. 8, lines 12 – 22; Oyman discloses that the media path interface component 212 can deliver streaming media content to the client device from the media origin server based on a set of parameters (e.g., a media selection, a particular version, a resolution, bit rate, a frame rate codec, QoS, bandwidth, transcoding, transrating or other such parameters related to streaming media content) .).
Regarding claim 3, Oyman discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
amplifying the feedback content when the determination indicates to modify the feedback content (col. 10, lines 11 – 24; Oyman discloses that the PER messages can be sent from the DANE components to the DASH client 206 by being processed and transmitted according to particular criteria or parameters that provide indications or options of parameters, parameter values, or media content specification/configurations/versions available for the DASH client 206); and
rendering the modified version of content comprising the amplified feedback content (col. 10, lines 34 – 42; Oyman discloses that the PER messages can comprise an indication of a throughput, an indication of a quality of service, and an indication of a transcoding parameter that enables a transcoding operation to be offloaded from the media origin server 202 to the DANE component 204. These indications in the PER messages can server to provide which parameters are available for adjustment to affect the modification of the streaming media content via link 234 to the DASH client 206 ).
Regarding claim 4, Oyman discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
capturing the streamed content and the feedback content (col. 6, lines 19 – 23; col. 7, line 66 through col. 8, line 22); and
modifying the version of the content by suppressing one of the streamed content and the feedback content based on the determination (col. 7, lines 14 – 19, col. 7, line 66 through col. 8, line 22; Oyman discloses that the content adaptation component 214 can then modify the existing streaming content to smoothly and seamlessly provide the same streaming media content according to the metric and status messages being received).
Regarding claim 5, Oyman discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
combining the streamed content and feedback content into a media stream (), wherein the media stream is the modified version of content, such that one of the streamed content and feedback content within the media stream is amplified (col. 24, lines 10 - 37).
Regarding claim 6, Oyman discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising:
suppressing one of the streamed content and feedback content, the suppression based on amplification of one of the streamed content and feedback content (col. 7, lines 14 – 34; Oyman discloses that transrating can be a process by which the media content is converted to a different bit rate while maintaining the original format, for example, which can enable the client to receive media in a smaller storage space or be delivered more efficiently using a reduced bandwidth. The modification of the content can be, for example, a modification of the media itself, the delivery of the media or the media presentation of the sequence of segments. Further, the modification can be a function of or based on the metric and status messages received via the client 206 (e.g., via the client-to-DANE interface component 216.).
Regarding claim 7, Oyman discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting, by the media application, the modified version of content to another device (col. 5, lines 47 – 65, col. 15, lines 33 - 37; Oyman discloses that the DANE media origin server 202 can have multiple different versions or configuration settings or parameters related to segments of media content representations. This media content can then be delivered or streamed (via the media path interface 234) to one or more clients 206 or other network components (e.g., proxy server, eNB or the like) for further distributed or rendered in a display ).
Regarding claim 8, Oyman discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising transmitting the modified version of content to another device over a Peer-to-Peer (P2P) network (col. 5, lines 47 – 65; col. 29, lines 34 – 40).
Regarding claim 9, Oyman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the streamed content and feedback content comprise audio content (col. 7, lines 14 – 34; Oyman discloses that The modification, for example, can include a transcoding or a transrating of the media for the delivery of a presentation of the media being streamed, or the media presentation of a sequence of media segments (e.g., as video content, audio content, metadata from a MDA metadata file, or other such content ).
Claims 10 – 20 incorporate substantively all the limitations of claims 1 – 9 in device and computer program product form rather than method form. The reasons for rejecting claims 1 – 9 apply in claims 10 – 20. Therefore, claims 10 – 20 are rejecting for the same reasons.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVES DALENCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5:30PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/YVES DALENCOURT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights