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 regarding the 112(b) and prior art rejections (as previously formulated) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. Accordingly, the rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made against claims 10-12, 14-18, and 22 under 102 in view of Alvarez (already of record). The reason is that claim 10, a method claim, has an interpretation that differs from system claims 1 and 19.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 (and, by extension, claims 10 and 19) rely on distinguishing over the prior art using the details of the branch of the claim which receives content from multiple content providing servers. Although similar text is recited in claim 10, it is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 10 because it is part of a contingent limitation in a method claim whose condition precedent is not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II). Specifically, claim 10 requires receiving the candidate content from a single content server or multiple content servers, and then performs actions “in response to” either of those conditions. Because the claim does not require that the multiple-content-server condition occurs, then the actions that occur “in response to” that condition are also not required.
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.
(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 10-12, 14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US Pub. No. 2023/0036682).
Regarding claim 10, Alvarez shows:
receiving, from a content streaming device, first metadata for first content being streamed by the content streaming device (state information indicating server, content, and playback position: see [0056]-[0057], [0061], and [0075]);
requesting candidate content corresponding to the first metadata from at least one content provider server (requesting and receiving content corresponding to the state information, from a content provider server: see [0056] and [0075]-[0076]);
in response to the request, receiving the content from either a single content providing server or receiving contents from multiple content providing servers (see [0075]-[0076]);
in response to receiving the candidate content from the single content providing server, streaming the candidate content from the single content providing server (see [0075]-[0076]); and
in response to receiving the plurality of candidate contents from the multiple content providing servers (note that the claim can be practiced without this condition being met, so the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require this step or its constituent elements to be performed: see MPEP 2111.04(II)), determining whether the first metadata is identical to second metadata received along with the plurality of candidate contents,
selecting particular content to be streamed, in which whether the first metadata is identical to the second metadata is considered first and a reception order of the candidate contents is considered subsequently, and
streaming the particular content.
Regarding claim 11, Alvarez shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows receiving the content from a single content providing server and stream the received content (see Alvarez, [0056]-[0057], [0075]-[0076], where the state information indicates the content server from which to resume the stream).
Regarding claim 12, Alvarez shows the limitations of claim 2 as applied above and further shows wherein the single content providing server is identical to or different from a server providing the content to the second content streaming device (e.g., identical to, where the state information indicates the “particular content server”: see Alvarez, [0056]-[0057] and [0064]; note, too, that all servers are identical to or different from a given server).
Regarding claim 14, Alvarez further shows wherein the multiple content providing servers include or exclude a server providing the content to the second content streaming device (e.g., at least including the content server: see Alvarez, [0056]-[0057], [0075]-[0076]).
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.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US Pub. No. 2023/0036682) in view of Govind (US Pub. No. 2013/0226888).
Regarding claim 15, Alvarez does not explicitly show wherein the operations comprise comparing the first metadata with second metadata received along with the content from the multiple content providing servers and streaming the content that corresponds to the second metadata that is identical to the first metadata.
Govind shows wherein a processor is configured to compare the first metadata with second metadata received along with the content and stream content that corresponds to the second metadata that is identical to the first metadata (see [0039]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alvarez with the teachings of Govind in order to allow the user to content more quickly while ensuring that the content is up-to-date.
Regarding claim 16, the combination further shows wherein, in response to determining that the second metadata is not identical to the first metadata, streaming the content received first (see Govind [0041], and note that the device streams content received first by a nearby client device).
Regarding claim 17, the combination does not explicitly show wherein, in response to failing to receive the content from the content providing server, the processor is configured to search for the content corresponding to the first metadata in an internal memory and, in response to identifying the content corresponding to the first metadata in the internal memory, stream the content from the internal memory.
Govind shows in response to failing to receive the content from the content providing server, the processor is configured to search for the content corresponding to the first metadata in an internal memory and, in response to identifying the content corresponding to the first metadata in the internal memory, stream the content from the internal memory (see [0039]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Alvarez with the teachings of Govind in order to allow the user to content more quickly while ensuring that the content is up-to-date.
Regarding claim 18, the combination further shows wherein, in response to failing to identify the content corresponding to the first metadata in the internal memory, the processor is configured to: determine whether an external memory is attached; in response to a determination that the external memory is attached, search for the content corresponding to the first metadata in the external memory; and in response to identifying the content corresponding to the first metadata in the external memory, stream the content from the external memory (e.g., the external memory being a memory of another client system: see Govind, [0039]-[0041], as combined above).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US Pub. No. 2023/0036682) in view of Barton (US Pub. No. 2023/0379512).
Regarding claim 22, the Alvarez does not show, but Barton shows, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a user input, through a user interface of the device, that selects a streaming mode from a plurality of streaming modes, and wherein the request for content corresponding to the first metadata is based on the selected streaming mode (e.g., selecting a mode in which a particular content item is displayed, as opposed to a different mode in which a different content item is displayed: see Barton, [0039]-[0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Alvarez with the teachings of Barton in order to increase user satisfaction by granting them increased control over the operation of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 19-21 are allowed.
No statement setting forth the reasons for allowance is deemed necessary because the reasons for allowance are made evident by the record as a whole. See 37 CFR 1.104(e) and MPEP 1302.14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Biagini whose telephone number is (571)272-9743. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
Christopher D. Biagini
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Christopher Biagini/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights