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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-final rejection on 12/10/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant's arguments in the Remarks filed on 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments (pages 7-8), that none of the cited references teaches or suggests the limitations of “determining that a first version of a first segment…; in response, retrieving from a first memory a second version of the first segment”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Hegar discloses a multimedia delivery platform (Figures 1, 4, 8 and 10) or a data center (Figures 3 and 13-15) receives redundant segments transcoded by a primary transcoder and one or more secondary transcoders, temporarily caches the received segments in a data structure of a repository to wait for more additional redundant segments to be received before performing the selection of a segment with the best quality metric (Col 17 line 65 through Col 18 line 9 and Col 21 line 31 through Col 22 line 1). In some cases, the primary transcoder may be used as a default transcoder and assigned at the start of a broadcast so that its segments are queued for transmission to a CDN (Col 22 lines 29-46).
Then, the system inspects quality metrices of cached redundant segments to determine that they include errors and selects a best quality metric version of the cached redundant segments not being subject to errors (Col 17 lines 57-65, Col 18 line 31 through Col 19 line 15, Col 23 lines 39-44, Col 24 lines 11-29, Col 25 lines 1-6 and Col 27 lines 4-10). In the case that a segment from the primary transcoder is already queued for transmission and the selected best quality metric version of a cached redundant segment from the secondary transcoder, the system replaces the queued segment of the primary transcoder with the selected segment of the secondary transcoder from the cache (Col 22 lines 41-57). It means determining the quality metric of a queued segment from a primary transcoder is subject to error, a segment that not being subject to error from a secondary transcoder is selected and retrieved from a temporary cache to replace the queued segment. In other words, Hegar’s teaching meets the claimed limitations of “determining that a first version of a first segment…; in response, retrieving from a first memory a second version of the first segment”.
Then, the system transmits the selected best quality metric version of the cached redundant segments to a CDN (Col 12 line 43 through Col 13 line 10, Col 17 lines 63-65).
Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
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)(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 1-2, 4-7, 11-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hegar et al (US 10778354).
Regarding claim 1, Hegar discloses a computer-implemented method for streaming live events (Col 18 lines 10-30 for streaming live sporting or live events), the method comprising:
determining that a first version of a first segment of a stream that is associated with a live event includes one or more errors; in response, retrieving from a first memory a second version of the first segment; determining that the second version of the first segment does not include any errors (Hegar discloses transcoding and caching segments of a source stream by two or more transcoders into two or more redundant versions of the segments, each of versions accompanied with an assigned segment quality metric based on error factors (Col 10 line 56 through Col 11 line 57, Col 12 lines 35-43, Col 14 lines 37-54 and Col 21 lines 55-67); a multimedia delivery platform (Figures 1, 4, 8 and 10) or a data center (Figures 3 and 13-15) receives redundant segments transcoded by a primary transcoder and one or more secondary transcoders, temporarily caches the received segments in a data structure of a repository to wait for more additional redundant segments to be received before performing the selection of a segment with the best quality metric (Col 17 line 65 through Col 18 line 9 and Col 21 line 31 through Col 22 line 1). In some cases, the primary transcoder may be used as a default transcoder and assigned at the start of a broadcast so that its segments are queued for transmission to a CDN (Col 22 lines 29-46). Then, the system inspects quality metrices of cached redundant segments to determine that they include errors and selects a best quality metric version of the cached redundant segments not being subject to errors (Col 17 lines 57-65, Col 18 line 31 through Col 19 line 15, Col 23 lines 39-44, Col 24 lines 11-29, Col 25 lines 1-6 and Col 27 lines 4-10). In the case that a segment from the primary transcoder is already queued for transmission and the selected best quality metric version of a cached redundant segment from the secondary transcoder, the system replaces the queued segment of the primary transcoder with the selected segment of the secondary transcoder from the cache (Col 22 lines 41-57). It means determining the quality metric of a queued segment from a primary transcoder is subject to error, a segment that not being subject to error from a secondary transcoder is selected and retrieved from a temporary cache to replace the queued segment); and
transmitting the second version of the first segment to a content delivery network (CDN) (Col 12 line 43 through Col 13 line 10, Col 17 lines 63-65 for transmitting the best quality metric segment to a content delivery network).
Regarding claim 2, Hegar discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Hegar further discloses wherein determining that the first version of the first segment includes one or more errors comprises comparing a total number of frames included in the first version of the first segment to an expected number of frames per segment (Col 20 line 61 through Col 21 line 2 and Col 30 lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 4, Hegar discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Hegar further discloses wherein retrieving the first version of the first segment from the first memory comprises retrieving the first version of the first segment from a second region of the first memory after failing to retrieve the first version of the first segment from a first region of the first memory (Col 18 lines 10-63).
Regarding claim 5, Hegar discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Hegar further discloses prior to determining that the first version of the first segment includes one or more errors: receiving the first version of the first segment from a first streaming pipeline; receiving the second version of the first segment from a second streaming pipeline; and storing in the first memory both the first version of the first segment and the second version of the first segment (Figures 1 and 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, Hegar discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Hegar further discloses determining that a first version of a second segment of the stream and at least a second version of the second segment of the stream include one or more errors; performing one or more error concealment operations on the first version of the second segment to generate a modified version of the second segment; and transmitting the modified version of the second segment to the CDN (Col 29 line 42 through Col 30 line 55).
Regarding claim 7, Hegar discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 6. Hegar further discloses wherein the stream comprises a video stream, and the one or more error concealment operations comprise inserting one or more replicated frames into the first version of the second segment of the stream (Col 6 lines 1-10, Col 20 lines 1-19 and lines 61-67 and Col 24 lines 41-66).
Regarding claims 11-12, all limitations of claims 11-12 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claims 1-2.
Regarding claim 13, Hegar discloses the one or more non-transitory computer readable media as discussed in the rejection of claim 11. Hegar further discloses wherein determining that the first version of the first segment includes one or more errors comprises detecting that the first version of the first segment has at least one of a timing discontinuity or an incorrect number of frames (Col 20 line 61 through Col 21 line 2 and Col 30 lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 14, all limitations of claim 14 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, Hegar discloses the one or more non-transitory computer readable media as discussed in the rejection of claim 11. Hegar further discloses in further response to determining that the first version of the first segment includes one or more errors, generating an error message indicating that a first streaming pipeline is compromised (Col 9 lines 19-36, Col 34 lines 11-28 and Col 37 lines 10-22).
Regarding claim 16, all limitations of claim 16 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, all functionalities of a system in claim 20 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claim 1. Hegar discloses a system comprising: one or more memories storing instructions, and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories (Cols 41 and 42).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegar et al (US 10778354) in view of Garney (US 10798145).
Regarding claim 3, Hegar discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Hegar further discloses determining that the first version of the first segment includes one or more errors (Col 17 lines 57-62, Col 18 lines 46-53, Col 19 line 53 through Col 20 line 67, Col 23 lines 39-44 and Col 24 lines 11-29), but is silent about comparing a first start time associated with the first version of the first segment to an expected start time for the first segment.
Garney discloses comparing a first start time associated with the first version of the first segment to an expected start time for the first segment (Col 8 lines 18-43).
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 Hegar system with the teaching of Garney, so to provide an alternative way of identifying errors in received segments as a matter of engineering choices.
Claims 8-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegar et al (US 10778354) in view of Johns (US 2018/0234714).
Regarding claim 8, Hegar discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Hegar is silent about determining that a first version of a first manifest associated with the live event includes one or more errors; in response, retrieving from the first memory a second version of the first manifest; determining that the second version of the first manifest does not include any errors; and transmitting the second version of the first manifest to the CDN.
Johns discloses determining that a first version of a first manifest associated with the live event includes one or more errors; in response, retrieving from the first memory a second version of the first manifest; determining that the second version of the first manifest does not include any errors; and transmitting the second version of the first manifest to the CDN (¶ [0022], ¶ [0026], ¶ [0029]-[0031] and ¶ [0045]-[0049]).
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 Hegar system with the teaching of Johns, so to enhance system with capability of resolving not only errors in versions of segments of content stream but also errors in versions of manifest files.
Regarding claim 9, Hegar in view of Johns discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 8. The combined system further discloses wherein the first manifest comprises a window manifest that describes a first portion of the stream or an event manifest that describes the first portion of the stream and at least a second portion of the stream (taught by Hegar; Figures 2; Col 11 lines 8-12, Col 13 lines 39-47 and Col 14 lines 9-36; and taught by Johns; Figure 6).
Regarding claim 10, Hegar discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Hegar is silent about determining that a first version of a first manifest associated with the live event and at least a second version of the first manifest includes one or more errors; performing one or more error concealment operations on the first version of the first manifest to generate a repaired version of the first manifest; and transmitting the repaired version of the first manifest to the CDN.
Johns discloses determining that a first version of a first manifest associated with the live event and at least a second version of the first manifest includes one or more errors; performing one or more error concealment operations on the first version of the first manifest to generate a repaired version of the first manifest; and transmitting the repaired version of the first manifest to the CDN (¶ [0022], ¶ [0026], ¶ [0029]-[0031] and ¶ [0045]-[0049]).
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 Hegar system with the teaching of Johns, so to enhance system with capability of resolving not only errors in versions of segments of content stream but also errors in versions of manifest files.
Regarding claim 18, all limitations of claim 18 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, Hegar in view of Johns discloses the one or more non-transitory computer readable media as discussed in the rejection of claim 18. The combined system further discloses generating an event manifest associated with the live event based on the second version of the first manifest and a first version of a second manifest, wherein the first manifest is associated with a first period of time and the second manifest is associated with a second period of time (taught by Johns; Figure 6; ¶ [0075]-[0080]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegar et al (US 10778354) in view of Mekuria et al (US 11750865).
Regarding claim 17, Hegar discloses the one or more non-transitory computer readable media as discussed in the rejection of claim 16. Hegar further discloses the stream comprises an audio stream (Figure 2; Col 9 line 52 through Col 10 line 29), and the one or more error concealment operations (Col 6 lines 1-10, Col 20 lines 1-19 and lines 61-67 and Col 24 lines 41-66), but is silent about inserting a portion of silent audio into the first version of the second segment of the stream.
Mekuria discloses stream comprises an audio stream and the one or more error concealment operations comprise inserting a portion of silent audio into the first version of the second segment of the stream (Col 29 lines 23-36).
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 Hegar system with the teaching of Mekuria, so to provide an alternative way of processing audio correction as a matter of engineering choices.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GIGI L DUBASKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/GIGI L DUBASKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights