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 filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 13, 15-16 and 20-28, applicant argues that a Terminal Disclaimer was submitted with the response to overcome the double patenting rejection; remarks page 7, line 5.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. As of the creation of the current office action, the examiner notes that no Terminal Disclaimer was submitted with respect to the parent application, now Patent No. 12,058,406. In order to expedite prosecution, the examiner suggests filing the aforementioned Terminal Disclaimer on the next response.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 13, 15-16 and 20-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: “chinks” in line two should be “chunks”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,406. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 21 of the instant application are a broader version overlapping in patentable scope to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,406.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2-4 and 5-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,406.
Claims 8-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, and 7-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,406.
Claims 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,406.
Claims 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,406.
Claims 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,406.
Claims 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,406.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 13, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy et al. (Pub No US 2012/0042091) in view of Pichon et al. (Pub No US 2018/0184145). Hereinafter, referenced as McCarthy and Pichon, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, McCarthy discloses a method of broadcasting channels to a broadcast receiver, the method comprising:
transmitting to the broadcast receiver (e.g. in-home adaptive media server 1902) a plurality of streams for each at least one channel broadcast (e.g. cable television programming), wherein each stream comprises video displaying content of its respective associated channel (Paragraphs [0056] [0057] figure 19; in-home adaptive media server 1902 receives content from content provider 312, e.g. cable television programming; paragraphs [0004] [0039]);
transmitting instructions (Paragraph [0053] figure 17; program information that allows the in-home adaptive media server 1902 to determine discontinuities/boundaries) to the broadcast receiver (e.g. in-home adaptive media server 1902), the instructions usable by the broadcast receiver to segment each of the plurality of streams into sequential chunks suitable for delivery by the broadcast receiver of Adaptive Bitrate (ABR) content to a display device (Paragraphs [0055] [0056] [0057] figures 17 and 19; in-home adaptive server 1902 divides the streaming media content into a plurality of variable duration segments 1708 so that the end of at least one of the variable media segments is aligned with the discontinuities/boundaries).
However, it is noted that McCarthy is silent to explicitly disclose that each stream comprises video encoded at a different bitrate relative to other of said plurality of streams displaying the content of its respectively associated channel.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Pichon discloses that each stream comprises video encoded at a different bitrate relative to other of said plurality of streams displaying the content of its respectively associated channel (Paragraphs [0039] [0040] figures 5A-B; gateway device 530 receiving video streams encoded at different bitrates, e.g. ABR profile).
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 McCarthy by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Pichon, for the predictable result of distributing video content encoded at different bitrates over a television network in order to more efficiently utilize the available bandwidth during different network conditions.
Regarding claim 2, McCarthy and Pichon disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, McCarthy discloses that transmitting a plurality of streams at different bit rates for each channel includes at least two streams at lower bit rates (Paragraphs [0033] [0039] figure 7; distributing chunks at different rates and multiple formats).
Regarding claim 3, McCarthy and Pichon disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, McCarthy discloses that transmitting a plurality of streams at lower bit rates for each channel includes at least one stream at high bit rate and resolution (Paragraphs [0033] [0039] figure 7; distributing chunks at different rates and multiple formats).
Regarding claim 9, McCarthy and Pichon disclose the method of claim 1; however, it is noted that McCarthy is silent to explicitly disclose that the instructions include profile bitrates and other parameters to assist in creating manifest files required by the ABR protocol requested by the display device .
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Pichon discloses that the instructions include profile bitrates and other parameters to assist in creating manifest files required by the ABR protocol requested by the display device (Paragraphs [0025] [0041]; gateway 530 updates a manifest file based on ABR profiles determined by the user requests).
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 McCarthy by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Pichon, for the predictable result of distributing video content encoded at different bitrates over a television network in order to more efficiently utilize the available bandwidth during different network conditions, where an updated manifest may be needed based on multiple profiles.
Regarding claim 13, McCarthy and Pichon disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, McCarthy discloses that the instructions are usable by the broadcast receiver to build a set of playlists according to one or more ABR formats (Paragraphs [0033] [0039] figure 7; distributing chunks at different rates and multiple formats).
Regarding claim 21, McCarthy and Pichon disclose all the limitations of claim 21; therefore, claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 25, McCarthy and Pichon disclose all the limitations of claim 25; therefore, claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 13.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy and Pichon further in view of Ben Eli et al. (Pub No US 2017/0149860). Hereinafter, referenced as Ben Eli.
Regarding claim 6, McCarthy and Pichon disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, McCarthy discloses that the instructions (Paragraph [0053] figure 17; program information that allows the in-home adaptive media server 1902 to determine discontinuities/boundaries) are usable by the broadcast receiver to segment each of the plurality of streams into sequential chunks and so that each chunk has a time duration within a predetermined range (Paragraphs [0055] [0056] [0057] figures 17 and 19; in-home adaptive server 1902 divides the streaming media content into a plurality of variable duration segments 1708 so that the end of at least one of the variable media segments is aligned with the discontinuities/boundaries).
However, it is noted that McCarthy and Pichon are silent to explicitly disclose that each chunk starts with an anchor frame that is aligned in time across the plurality of streams for each channel.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Ben Eli discloses that each chunk starts with an anchor frame (Paragraphs [0098] [0099]; pre-fetched segments start with anchor frames) that is aligned in time across the plurality of streams for each channel (Paragraphs [0084]; prefetch two or more segment files, encoded at different rates, all corresponding to the same playback start and end times, e.g. aligned).
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 McCarthy and Pichon by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Ben Eli, for the predictable result of standardizing the length of pre-fetched chunks in order to simplify the switching mechanism between streams.
Regarding claim 7, McCarthy, Pichon and Ben Eli disclose the method of claim 6; however, it is noted that McCarthy and Pichon are silent to explicitly disclose the predetermined range spans an interval between 0.5 and 12 seconds.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Ben Eli discloses that the predetermined range spans an interval between 0.5 and 12 seconds (Paragraphs [0046]; e.g. 10 seconds).
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 McCarthy and Pichon by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Ben Eli, for the predictable result of standardizing the length of pre-fetched chunks in order to simplify the switching mechanism between streams.
Claim 10, 22, 24 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy and Pichon further in view of Kanungo (Pub No US 2016/0277366). Hereinafter, referenced as Kanungo.
Regarding claim 10, McCarthy and Pichon disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, McCarthy discloses the plurality of streams at different bit rates for each channel (Paragraphs [0033] [0039] figure 7; distributing chunks at different rates and multiple formats).
However, it is noted that McCarthy and Pichon are silent to explicitly disclose encrypting the plurality of streams using traditional broadcast conditional access.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Kanungo discloses encrypting the plurality of streams using traditional broadcast conditional access (Paragraphs [0018] [0028] [0029] figure 2; encrypting each segment 117 implementing a key).
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 McCarthy and Pichon by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Kanungo, for the predictable result of preventing unauthorized reproduction or use of the segment (Kanungo – paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 22, McCarthy, Pichon and Kanungo disclose all the limitations of claim 22; therefore, claim 22 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 10.
Regarding claim 24, McCarthy and Pichon disclose the method of claim 21; moreover, McCarthy discloses that, upon selection of a channel to view by a display device, the broadcast receiver processes the plurality of streams at different bit rates for the channel into a requested ABR chunk format (Paragraphs [0033] [0039] figure 7; distributing chunks at different rates and multiple formats, wherein user device 1908, 1904, 1906 receive the requested content).
However, it is noted that McCarthy and Pichon are silent to explicitly disclose that the broadcast receiver decrypts and processes the plurality of streams.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Kanungo discloses that the broadcast receiver decrypts and processes the plurality of streams (Paragraphs [0018] [0028] [0029] figure 2; encrypting each segment 117 implementing a key, i.e. decrypt 224 at media device 104; paragraph [0034]).
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 McCarthy and Pichon by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Kanungo, for the predictable result of preventing unauthorized reproduction or use of the segment (Kanungo – paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 26, McCarthy and Pichon disclose the method of claim 21; moreover, McCarthy discloses the ABR chunks (Paragraphs [0033] [0039] figure 7; distributing ABR chunks at different rates and multiple formats, wherein user device 1908, 1904, 1906 receive the requested content).
However, it is noted that McCarthy and Pichon are silent to explicitly disclose encrypting the chunks, and implementing a key management system to provide encryption keys or key material to client devices.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Kanungo discloses encrypting (e.g. encrypt segments 206) the chunks, and implementing a key management system to provide encryption keys or key material to client devices (Paragraphs [0018] [0028] [0029] figure 2; decrypt 224 using a key at media device 104; paragraph [0034]. Wherein key may be stored in a number of files that may be requested 216 by the client device 104; paragraph [0033]).
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 McCarthy and Pichon by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Kanungo, for the predictable result of preventing unauthorized reproduction or use of the segment (Kanungo – paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 27, McCarthy and Pichon disclose the method of claim 21; moreover, McCarthy discloses that the broadcast receiver (e.g. in-home adaptive server 1902) is configured to act as a server for the playlists, and media segments to the display device (Paragraphs [0055] [0056] [0057] figures 17 and 19; in-home adaptive server 1902 divides the streaming media content into a plurality of variable duration segments 1708 so that the end of at least one of the variable media segments is aligned with the discontinuities/boundaries).
However, it is noted that McCarthy and Pichon are silent to explicitly disclose that the broadcast receiver is configured to act as a server for key related files to the display device.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Kanungo discloses that the broadcast receiver (e.g. media server device 102) is configured to act as a server for key related files to the display device (Paragraphs [0018] [0028] [0029] figure 2; decrypt 224 using a key at media device 104; paragraph [0034]. Wherein key may be stored in a number of files that may be requested 216 by the client device 104; paragraph [0033]).
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 McCarthy and Pichon by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Kanungo, for the predictable result of preventing unauthorized reproduction or use of the segment (Kanungo – paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 28, McCarthy, Pichon and Kanungo disclose the method of claim 27; moreover, McCarthy discloses that the broadcast receiver stores the plurality of sequential chinks at a time prior to the display device requesting access to a stream at a bit rate for a channel (Paragraph [0057] figure 19; chunks 1… N in in-home adaptive server 1902).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy and Pichon further in view of Thorwirth et al. (Pub No US 2018/0129273). Hereinafter, referenced as Thorwirth.
Regarding claim 15, McCarthy and Pichon disclose the method of claim 13; moreover, McCarthy discloses the at least one ABR format (Paragraphs [0036] [0037] figures 2 and 7).
However, it is noted that McCarthy and Pichon are silent to explicitly disclose that at least one ABR format is HLS.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Thorwirth discloses that at least one ABR format is HLS (Paragraph [0070]; e.g. HLS).
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 McCarthy and Pichon by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Thorwirth, for the predictable result of implementing well-known segmenting technologies that currently facilitate this selection of multiple bitrate versions of content.
Regarding claim 16, McCarthy and Pichon disclose the method of claim 13; moreover, McCarthy discloses the at least one ABR format (Paragraphs [0036] [0037] figures 2 and 7).
However, it is noted that McCarthy and Pichon are silent to explicitly disclose that at least one ABR format is DASH.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Thorwirth discloses that at least one ABR format is DASH (Paragraph [0070]; e.g. HLS).
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 McCarthy and Pichon by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Thorwirth, for the predictable result of implementing well-known segmenting technologies that currently facilitate this selection of multiple bitrate versions of content.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy and Pichon further in view of Visharam et al. (Pub No US 2012/0254456). Hereinafter, referenced as Visharam.
Regarding claim 20, McCarthy and Pichon disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, McCarthy the plurality of streams for each channel (Paragraphs [0033] [0039] figure 7; distributing chunks at different rates and multiple formats).
However, it is noted that McCarthy and Pichon are silent to explicitly disclose hint data in an MPEG program table descriptor that can be used by a client device for the creation of ABR playlists.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Visharam discloses hint data in an MPEG program table descriptor (Paragraph [0348]; e.g. MPEG-TS) that can be used by a client device for the creation of ABR playlists (Paragraph [0359]; entries with hints for generating the manifest files for the various adaptive streaming formats).
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 McCarthy and Pichon by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Ben Visharam, for the predictable result of implementing well known content distribution formats suitable for most client devices already available in the market.
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 JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm EST..
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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights