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 .
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
A certified copy of 6747/CHE/2014 has been filed in parent Application No. 14/691,598, filed on 21 April 2015. It is noted the ‘598 application (now abandoned) claimed priority to said foreign application. However, no claim to priority to that foreign application has been made in the instant application either in an Application Data Sheet nor in the Specification.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 20 January 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 12,050,769 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are presently pending.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 20 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 under 35 USC 103 over Hamilton and Duan have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Darby et al. (US 2015/0046812 A1).
Examiner’s Notes
The Examiner notes that while Applicant’s Remarks submitted on 20 January 2026 include a statement of Written Authorization for Internet Communication in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 1.34, the Examiner draws attention to MPEP 713.01(II)(A) which specifies “[t]he Internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c).” If Applicant wishes to provide Written Authorization it must be done so in a separate paper and not as part of the written Remarks.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al. (US 5,504,816) (of record , hereinafter Hamilton), in view of Duan et al. (US 7,143,433 B1) (of record, hereinafter Duan), and further in view of Darby et al. (US 2015/0046812 A1) (as provided by the IDS submitted on 19 September 2024, hereinafter Darby),
Regarding Claim 1, Hamilton discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
identifying, by a playback module of a device, a media item; [Figs. 1-4; col. 5, lines 5-10: wherein system may receive subscriber requests for programming change or purchase of program; col. 6, lines 1-6: converter 86 and tv 88 for receiving program signals 24 from hubs 42; col. 6, lines 53-67: hubs may include re-encryption transcoder 58]
requesting, by the playback module, the media item from a streaming module; [Figs. 1-4; col. 5, lines 5-10: wherein system may receive subscriber requests for programming change or purchase of program; col. 6, lines 1-6: converter 86 and tv 88 for receiving program signals 24 from hubs 42; col. 6, lines 53-67: hubs may include re-encryption transcoder 58 (where it would be implicitly understood that the various processors would be making requests for transmission of data across the various system components)]
obtaining, by the streaming module, the media item from a decryption module; [Figs. 1-4; col. 1, lines 16-25; col. 2, line 59 – col. 3, line 15: wherein system may provide and generate program transmission streams; col. 5, line 25 – col. 6, line 63: transcoder 58 receives decrypted data from decrypter 65 and prepares the decrypted media data for transmission for transmission to subscribers (where it would be implicitly understood that the various processors would be making requests for transmission of data across the various system components)]
decrypting, by the decryption module, the media item from an encrypted media file; [Figs. 1-4; col. 4, lines 62-64; col. 6, lines 7-24: decrypter 65]
delivering, by the decryption module, the media item to the streaming module; [Figs. 1-4; col. 1, lines 16-25; col. 2, line 59 – col. 3, line 15: wherein system may provide and generate program transmission streams; col. 5, line 25 – col. 6, line 63: transcoder 58 receives decrypted data from decrypter 65 and prepares the decrypted media data for transmission for transmission to subscribers (where it would be implicitly understood that the various processors would be making requests for transmission of data across the various system components)] and
delivering, by the streaming module, the media item to the playback module. [Hamilton – Fig. 1; col. 3, line 39 – col. 4, line 8; col. 5, lines 15-65: where signals may be modulated for transmission of video streams through distribution network 14 (where it would be implicitly understood that data transmission over networks would follow some sort of transmission protocol standard);]
Hamilton also discloses the system comprising temporary data storage. [Figs. 1-4: buffer 90]
Hamilton fails to explicitly disclose determining an amount of available memory of the device; determining a size of a first portion of the media item based at least in part on the amount of available memory of the device; and wherein the media item is a first portion of the media item from a streaming module. (Emphasis on the particular element of the limitations not explicitly disclosed by Hamilton – namely that the media item requested and processed does not necessarily comprise the entire media item).
Duan, in analogous art, teaches determining an amount of available memory of the device; determining a size of a first portion of the media item based at least in part on the amount of available memory of the device; and wherein the media item is a first portion of the media item from a streaming module. [col. 10, lines 30-54: where video systems (such as the system of Hamilton above) may dynamically fragment data files as a function of the size of the requested data file, and amount of retention space available of data file storages (such as the buffer of Hamilton above)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Hamilton with the teachings of Duan to dynamically request size of media data based at least in part on an available amount of temporary data storage in order to facilitate the transfer of files from a server to client computing system in a smooth manner. [Duan – ABST; col. 1, lines 33-40; col. 10, lines 31-37]
Hamilton and Duan fail to explicitly disclose operating, on a device, a playback module as a service that runs in a background process while another application occupies a foreground of a user interface of the device.
Darby, in analogous art, teaches operating, on a device, a playback module as a service that runs in a background process while another application occupies a foreground of a user interface of the device. [Figs. 1-6; 0029-31: client devices may include GUI generator 108 may have a dynamic media player 110 that may be visible as ‘floating’ on top of other content provided by the same or different applications, such as media discovery applications, media item consumption platforms or the like]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Hamilton and Duan with the teachings of Darby to provide a playback module in a background process while another application occupies a foreground such that some media item playback may be visible in a foreground manner while the user engages in other activities in a different portion of the GUI. [Darby – 0031]
Regarding Claim 2, Hamilton, Duan, and Darby disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Hamilton discloses rendering, by the playback module, the first portion of the media item using at least one of: a display device or a sound device. [Hamilton – Figs. 1-4; col. 5, lines 5-10: wherein system may receive subscriber requests for programming change or purchase of program; col. 6, lines 1-6: converter 86 and tv 88 for receiving program signals 24 from hubs 42]
Regarding Claim 3, Hamilton, Duan, and Darby disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Duan discloses wherein requesting the first portion of the media item comprises requesting the first portion of the media item at a starting offset. [Duan – Fig. 5; col. 16, lines 18-34: request for a video data file has an identification of the requested video data file and a range or indication of the beginning location and size of the requested video data file (i.e., beginning offset)]
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 recites a device that performs the method of Claim 1. As such, Claim 8 is analyzed and rejected as Claim 1, mutatis mutandis. (see also Hamilton [Figs. 1-4]).
Regarding Claim 9, Hamilton, Duan, and Darby disclose all of the limitations of Claim 8, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Claim 9 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 2 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Hamilton, Duan, and Darby disclose all of the limitations of Claim 8, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Claim 10 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 3 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 8 recites a CRM that performs the method of Claim 1. As such, Claim 15 is analyzed and rejected as Claim 1, mutatis mutandis. (see also Hamilton [Figs. 1-4]).
Regarding Claim 16, Hamilton, Duan, and Darby disclose all of the limitations of Claim 15, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Claim 16 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 2 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 17, Hamilton, Duan, and Darby disclose all of the limitations of Claim 15, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Claim 17 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 3 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, Duan, and Darby as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, above, and further in view of Nicholls (US 2014/0037090 A1) (of record, hereinafter Nicholls).
Regarding Claim 4, Hamilton, Duan, and Darby disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Hamilton, Duan, and Darby fail to explicitly disclose storing the decrypted media data to in a temporary data storage; and causing the decrypted media data to be overwritten or erased from the temporary data storage once the media data has delivered to the playback module.
Nicholls, in analogous art, teaches storing the decrypted media data to in a temporary data storage; and causing the decrypted media data to be overwritten or erased from the temporary data storage once the media data has delivered to the playback module. [Figs. 1-3; 0021, 0029-30, 0060-63: where decrypting system (such as that of Hamilton and Duan, above) may decrypt and overwrite buffer data with subsequently decrypted data after decrypted data is transferred to video decoder]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hamilton, Duan, and Darby with the teachings of Nicholls to specify a temporary data storage to temporarily store the decrypted data, and to overwrite/erase media data in the temporary storage once the media data has been streamed as it is understood that video systems may provide a buffer to temporarily store decrypted data, but may thereafter overwrite the buffer after the video has been streamed/utilized such that the buffered data may be deleted or overwritten to ensure digital rights management of the content by preventing unauthorized copying. [Nicholls – ABST; 0001-4; 0029-30]
Regarding Claim 11, Hamilton, Duan, and Darby disclose all of the limitations of Claim 8, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Claim 11 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 4 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 18, Hamilton, Duan, and Darby disclose all of the limitations of Claim 15, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Claim 18 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 4 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, Duan, and Darby as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively above, and further in view of Speicher et al. (US 2008/0172441 A1) (of record, hereinafter Speicher)
Regarding Claim 5, Hamilton, Duan, and Darby disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Hamilton, Duan, and Darby fail to explicitly disclose wherein determining the size of a first portion of the media item comprises determining the size of the first portion of the media based on a size calculated by reducing the amount of available memory by a specified amount.
Speicher, in analogous art, teaches wherein determining the size of a first portion of the media item comprises determining the size of the first portion of the media based on a size calculated by reducing the amount of available memory by a specified amount. [0028-29: jitter buffers (such as the buffer of Hamilton and Duan) may be dynamically adjusted over the course of media playback such that excess memory may be freed up (i.e., reduced)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Hamilton, Duan, and Darby with the teachings of Speicher to reduce the amount of available memory in order to free up additional buffer to improve responsiveness of startup and seek and trick mode operations. [Speicher – ABST]
Regarding Claim 12, Hamilton, Duan, and Darby disclose all of the limitations of Claim 8, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Claim 12 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 5 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 19, Hamilton, Duan, and Darby disclose all of the limitations of Claim 15, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Claim 19 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 4 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
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 WILLIAM J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/WILLIAM J KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409