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 communications filed 7/3/24 and 9/16/24. Claims 1-24 have been examined and are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/3/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 12,081,633 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been entered.
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 1-3, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Gregotski (US 2014/0280781 A1)
Re: Claim 1 Gregotski teaches a method comprising:
determining, by the computing device, based on a request for content associated with a first channel a first manifest file (Gregotski: [0025] ref FIG 2, step 2002; “the user may navigate through movie listings and select an asset for viewing on Channel 1. The asset is linked at 2002 to a URI pointing to an enhanced high level playlist”) , wherein the first manifest file facilitates access by the user device to the content associated with the first channel; (Gregotski: [0026] ref FIG 2, “the enhanced top level manifest file for the asset related to Channel 1 […] contains information about the adaptive bitrate profiles and links to the manifests corresponding to each media bandwidth representation … “)
determining, based on the first channel (Gregotski: [0025] ref FIG 2, step 2002) , a second channel that can be accessed by the user device; [and] determining, based on the second channel, a second manifest file (Gregotski: [0032]-[0034] ref FIG 2, steps 2007-2010a-n, 2012-2019a-n - Channel2 media files and manifests retrieved based on “Channel2 media file [information] already included in the previously retrieved [Channel1] second level enhanced manifest”; [0051]-[0052] “Live Playlist” includes playlists for “current channel +1”, “current channel -1”; [0058] “manifest files for different services [combined] into one "compound" manifest file, such that the client device will not be required to read in another manifest file if the channel is changed”)
sending, to the user device, the first manifest file (Gregotski: [0026] ref FIG 2, “the ABR player 104 receives, at 2004, the enhanced top level manifest file for the asset related to Channel 1 …”; [0028] ref FIG 2 steps 2006, 2007 “ABR player 104 receives the enhanced second level manifest for the [requested] bandwidth”) and a portion of the content associated with the first channel (Gregotski: [0030] ref FIG 2, “the content publishing server 106 sends each of the Channel 1 media files at 201 0a-n … and the ABR player 104 in turn receives at 2010a-n the Channel 1 media files in succession)
sending, to the user device, the second manifest file (Gregotski: [0033] - [0034] ref FIG 2, “While the Channel2 media segments received at 2013 are being downloaded and played, in the background the enhanced [top] level manifest for Channel2 is acquired at 2015 … [and] the enhanced [2nd] level manifest for Channel2 is acquired at 2017”)
Re: Claim 2, Gregotski teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the computing device is associated with a content delivery network (Gregotski: [0059], [0061] ref FIG 3; [0080]-[0082])
Re: Claim 3, Gregotski teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the computing device is associated with a content origin (Gregotski: [0073]-[0074] ref FIG 3; [0085])
Re: Claim 5, Gregotski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining, based on the first channel, a second channel that can be accessed by the user device comprises determining a channel succeeding the first channel or determining a channel preceding the first channel. (Gregotski: Abstract, [0011] “the compound playlist can be designed to offer direct access to neighboring channels”; [0044] The other services included in the compound playlist can be generated based on the currently viewed service (for example, such as providing playlist information channel up/down …”); [0051]-[0052] “Live Playlist” includes playlists for “current channel +1”, “current channel -1”; [0054]).
Re: Claim 6, Gregotski teaches the method of claim 1 wherein determining, based on the first channel, a second channel that can be accessed by the user device comprises determining a channel associated with content related to the content associated with the first channel (Gregotski: Abstract, [0011]; “the compound playlist can be designed to offer direct access to neighboring channels or other services in the same genre”; [0044] “The other services included in the compound playlist can be generated based on the currently viewed service (for example, such as providing playlist information [for] other services in the same genre)”; [0054])
Re: Claim 8, Gregotski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user device stores the second manifest file in a cache of the user device, and wherein the user device deletes the second manifest file after a duration of time (Gregotski : [0065] ref FIG 3 streams divided into fragments of fixed duration; [0089] caching of fragments; [0196] "Once a fragment is not required for further playout, that fragment may be removed ... ")
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregotski (US 2014/0280781 A1) in view of Mandyam (US 2016/0337424 A1)
Re: Claim 4, Gregotski teaches the method of claim 1 including determining, based on the first channel (Gregotski: [0025] ref FIG 2 step 2005 “Channel1” selection) , a second channel that can be accessed by the user device (Gregotski: [0031] ref FIG 2, step 2011, user selects “Channel2”; [0032]-[0034] ref FIG 2, steps 2007-2010a-n, 2012-2019a-n; [0051]-[0052])
Gregotski does not explicitly teach:
(i) determining a second channel that can be accessed by the user device comprises determining a channel accessed by the user device prior to the user device accessing the first channel
Mandyam teaches
(i) determining a second channel that can be accessed by the user device comprises determining a channel accessed by the user device prior to the user device accessing the first channel (Mandyam: [0006], [0132] determining “tuned channel for the client device has changed from a previous channel to a current channel”; [0138] ref FIG 6)
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 teachings of Mandyam re: determining a previously accessed channel, and “in response to the determination, deliver[ing] media data of the current channel to the streaming client of the client device … without receiving a request from the streaming client for the media data” (Mandyam: [0006], [0132]; [0138] ref FIG 6) with those of Gregotski re: channel selection (Gregotski: [0025] ref FIG 2 step 2005; [0031] ref FIG 2, step 2011) and delivery of associated media files (Gregotski: [0030] ref FIG 2, steps 2009a-n – 2010a-n; [0035] 2018a-n - 2019a-n) since by delivering media for the current channel without requiring a specific client request speeds up media delivery when channel switching.
Claims 7, 9-11, 13-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregotski (US 2014/0280781 A1) in view of Huysegems et al (EP 3001688 A1)
Re: claim 7 Gregotski teaches the method of claim 1 including sending, to the user device, the second manifest file (Gregotski: [0033]-[0034] ref FIG 2, steps 2015, 2017;)
Gregotski does not explicitly teach:
(i) pushing, to the user device, based on a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 2.0 server push, the second manifest file
Huysegems teaches:
(i) pushing, to the user device, based on a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 2.0 server push, the second manifest file (Huysegems: [0009] Once the [streaming video] transfer has been initiated the server can start pushing further manifests when they become available…; [0015] “… the internet application protocol is HTTP2.0 and the manifest pushing unit is configured for pushing a manifest to the client by performing a HTTP2.0 push”; [0062]-[0063] ref FIG 5)
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 teachings of Huysegems re: pushing of additional manifest files for a video transfer with “no more need for the client to request any more manifests for that video transfer” (Huysegems: [0009]) with those of Gregotski re: sending of a second manifest file (Gregotski: [0033] ref FIG 2, step 2015) since “by making the server push the manifests when they become available, instead of the client having to request them … a lot of time is saved per cycle. Indeed … the waiting time at the client is diminished or even totally abolished” (Huysegems: [0007])
Claim 9 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 7 except:
(i) determining, based on the request [for content associated with a first channel], a second channel that can be accessed by the user device; However,
Gregotski teaches:
(i) determining, based on the request [for content associated with a first channel], a second channel that can be accessed by the user device; (Gregotski : [0032]-[0034] ref FIG 2, steps 2007-2010a-n, 2012-2019a-n - Channel2 media files and manifests retrieved based on “Channel2 media file [information] already included in the previously retrieved [Channel1] second level enhanced manifest”; [0051]-[0052] “Live Playlist” includes playlists for “current channel +1”, “current channel -1”; [0058] “manifest files for different services [combined] into one "compound" manifest file, such that the client device will not be required to read in another manifest file if the channel is changed”). Therefore, similar reasons for rejection apply.
Claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 7, insofar as it simply corresponds to the steps of receiving, by the user device, the first and second manifest files sent and pushed, respectively, by the computing device therein; except:
(i) causing, based on the second manifest file, output of a portion of content associated with the second channel. However,
Gregotski teaches:
(i) causing, based on the second manifest file, output of a portion of content associated with the second channel. (Gregotski [0032] –[0034] ref FIG 2, “ABR player 104 receives at 2013 the Channel 2 media file directly based on the enhanced second level manifest received at 2004 …. Channel2 media segments received at 2013 are […] downloaded and played … “) Therefore, similar reasons for rejection apply.
Re: Claim 10, Gregotski teaches the method of claim 9 wherein the computing device is associated with a content delivery network (Gregotski: [0059], [0061] ref FIG 3; [0080]-[0082])
Claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 10. Therefore similar reasons for rejection apply.
Re: Claim 11, Gregotski teaches the method of claim 9 wherein the computing device is associated with a content origin (Gregotski: [0073]-[0074] ref FIG 3; [0085])
Claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 11. Therefore similar reasons for rejection apply.
Re: Claim 13, Gregotski teaches the method of claim 9, wherein determining, based on the first channel, a second channel that can be accessed by the user device comprises determining a channel succeeding the first channel or determining a channel preceding the first channel. (Gregotski: Abstract, [0011] “the compound playlist can be designed to offer direct access to neighboring channels”; [0044] The other services included in the compound playlist can be generated based on the currently viewed service (for example, such as providing playlist information channel up/down …)”; [0051]-[0052] “Live Playlist” includes playlists for “current channel +1”, “current channel -1”; [0054])
Claim 22 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 13. Therefore similar reasons for rejection apply.
Re: Claim 14, Gregotski teaches the method of claim 9, wherein determining, based on the request, a second channel that can be accessed by the user device comprises determining a channel associated with content related to the content associated with the first channel. (Gregotski: Abstract, [0011]; “the compound playlist can be designed to offer direct access to neighboring channels or other services in the same genre”; [0044] The other services included in the compound playlist can be generated based on the currently viewed service (for example, such as providing playlist information [for] other services in the same genre)”; [0054])
Claim 23 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 14. Therefore similar reasons for rejection apply.
Re: Claim 15, Gregotski in view of Huysegems pushing, to the user device, based on a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 2.0 server push, the second manifest file, as discussed re: claim 7. Therefore similar reasons for rejection apply.
Claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 15. Therefore, similar reasons for rejection apply.
Re: Claim 16, Gregotski teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the user device stores the second manifest file in a cache of the user device, and wherein the user device deletes the second manifest file after a duration of time (Gregotski : [0065] ref FIG 3 streams divided into fragments of fixed duration; [0089] caching of fragments; [0196] "Once a fragment is not required for further playout, that fragment may be removed ... ")
Claim 24 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 16. Therefore, similar reasons for rejection apply.
Claims 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregotski and Huysegems in view of Mandyam (US 2016/0337424 A1)
Re: Claim 12, Gregotski teaches the method of claim 9 including determining, based on the first channel, a second channel that can be accessed by the user device comprises
Gregotski and Huysegems do not explicitly teach:
(i) determining a second channel that can be accessed by the user device comprises determining a channel accessed by the user device prior to the user device accessing the first channel. However,
Mandyam teaches
(i) determining a second channel that can be accessed by the user device comprises determining a channel accessed by the user device prior to the user device accessing the first channel, as discussed re: Claim 4. Therefore, similar reasons for rejection apply.
Claim 21 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 12. Therefore similar reasons for rejection apply.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure..
Shenfield et al (US 2007/0260674 A1) (Abstract: A push proxy and push client for use in a generic dynamic content delivery system the push proxy [adapted] to further receive channel metadata for the content providers; a channel metadata repository adapted to store said channel metadata received from the content providers; [0041]-[0045] ref FIG 1; [0048]-[0050] ref FIG 2; [0052]-[0055] ref FIG 3; FIGs 6-8, 14, 15, 17)
Phillips et al (US 2015/0089023 A1) (A system and method for managing adjacent channels in an adaptive streaming environment. One or more adjacent channels may be defined for a client device relative to a current streaming channel, wherein the client device is configured to pre-fetch metadata […] for the defined adjacent channels…”; [0033] ref FIGs 3A-C; [0038]-[0039] ref FIG 4)
Alexander et al (US 2018/0063594 A1) ([0028]; [0035] manifest(s) updated in response to channel change; [0059] Ref FIG. 3, “user interactions at the client device 102 … may comprise channel up or next channel selection, channel down or previous channel selection …”)
Yuan et al (US 2014/0032777 A1) ([0111] - [0112] ref FIG 7 Steps 704, 705; [0123] ref FIG 8 Step 807; [0136] - [0143] ref FIG 10 steps 1005-1011; [0180] - [0182] ref FIGs 2,3 sub-media segments)
Gordon (US 2016/0127440 A1) ([0231] ref FIG 4; [0740]-[0741] - caching of manifest files by user devices)
Famaey (US 2017/0171287 A1) (Abstract: A method for requesting a plurality of chunks by a streaming client on the basis of a single request message; [0132] ref FIG. 3A, “information in the manifest file may be stored in a manifest cache 310 and parsed by the client … to generate HTTP request messages … for requesting a particular chunk from a delivery node”; FIGs 2A, 3B)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-5643. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 1pm-5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at (571)272-3865. 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.
/ROBERT A SHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/EMMANUEL L MOISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2455