DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on September 22, 2025, disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent 12,118,573 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-16 are drawn to devices and claims 17-20 are drawn to a process, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites/describes the following steps:
“receiving, …, an update …, wherein the update indicates a current duration of multimedia content of a live event encoded and stored on a content server;” and
“sending an updated QMX file … in response to the received update, wherein the updated QMX file indicates the current duration of the multimedia content of the live event available for delivery,”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth receiving an update for a multimedia content and distributing the update, which amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites/describes the following steps:
“sending, …, a subscription request …to subscribe to a messaging service for multimedia content of a live event;”
“receiving, …, an updated QMX file for the multimedia content of the live event, wherein the updated QMX file indicates a current duration of the multimedia content of the live event available for delivery;” and
“updating, …, a timeline of the live event using the current duration from the QMX file, wherein the timeline of the live event is associated with an anchor point in time and indicates when portions of the multimedia content of the live event are available for delivery; and
“requesting, …, a portion of the multimedia content based on the current duration;” and
“staging, …, the requested portion of the multimedia content into a sequence for playback according to the timeline of the live event;” and
“determining, …, when to play the staged portion of the multimedia content based on the timeline of the live event to reduce an error time.”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth updating a multimedia content based on an update received from a subscription service, which amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites/describes the following steps:
“receiving, …, a first subscription request for multimedia content of a live event …;”
“receiving,… a second subscription request for the multimedia content of the live event…wherein the multimedia content is being encoded as the live event is occurring;”
“subscribing, …to a messaging service for the multimedia content;”
“receiving, …, an update indicating a current duration of the multimedia content of the live event is encoded and stored …;” and
“sending, … and in response to receiving the update, an updated QMX file …, wherein the updated QMX file indicates the current duration of the multimedia content encoded and stored on the content server,”
“…request portions of the multimedia content for delivery … based on the current duration to avoid requesting multimedia content that is not available for delivery,”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth updating a multimedia content based on an update received from a subscription service, which amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any elements recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a messaging device comprising: a processor; a hardware interface in electronic communication with the processor and configured to communicate on a network; a non-transitory memory configured to store instructions,” “a plurality of media players subscribed to a messaging service of the messaging device,” (claim 1); “a client device comprising: a processor; a network interface in communication with the processor and connected to a network; and a non-transitory memory in communication with the processor and configured to store instructions,” “a messaging server,” (claim 13); “a computing device,” “a first media player associated with a first client device,” “a second media player associated with a second client device,” “a content server ,” “a network,” (claim 17).
The claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “wherein each of the media players subscribed to the messaging service plays requested portions of the multimedia content of the live event based on the updated QMX file,” (claim 1); and “wherein the first and second media players play the requested portions of the multimedia content to reduce an error time, wherein the error time indicates a delay in playback of the multimedia content of the live event after a lag value,” (claim 17).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a messaging device comprising: a processor; a hardware interface in electronic communication with the processor and configured to communicate on a network; a non-transitory memory configured to store instructions,” “a plurality of media players subscribed to a messaging service of the messaging device,” (claim 1); “a client device comprising: a processor; a network interface in communication with the processor and connected to a network; and a non-transitory memory in communication with the processor and configured to store instructions,” “a messaging server,” (claim 13); “a computing device,” “a first media player associated with a first client device,” “a second media player associated with a second client device,” “a content server ,” “a network,” (claim 17), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
The recited additional elements of “wherein each of the media players subscribed to the messaging service plays requested portions of the multimedia content of the live event based on the updated QMX file,” (claim 1); and “wherein the first and second media players play the requested portions of the multimedia content to reduce an error time, wherein the error time indicates a delay in playback of the multimedia content of the live event after a lag value,” (claim 17), simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional elements are deemed “extra-solution” because they are merely presenting data/information to a user. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Remaining dependent claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18-20 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a messaging device comprising: a processor; a hardware interface in electronic communication with the processor and configured to communicate on a network; a non-transitory memory configured to store instructions,” “a plurality of media players subscribed to a messaging service of the messaging device,” (claim 1); “a client device comprising: a processor; a network interface in communication with the processor and connected to a network; and a non-transitory memory in communication with the processor and configured to store instructions,” “a messaging server,” (claim 13); “a computing device,” “a first media player associated with a first client device,” “a second media player associated with a second client device,” “a content server ,” “a network,” (claim 17), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional elements of “wherein each of the media players subscribed to the messaging service plays requested portions of the multimedia content of the live event based on the updated QMX file,” (claim 1); and “wherein the first and second media players play the requested portions of the multimedia content to reduce an error time, wherein the error time indicates a delay in playback of the multimedia content of the live event after a lag value,” (claim 17), simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of user interfaces in computer devices. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Remaining dependent claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18-20 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-202 would be allowable subject matter if revised and amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Bowra et al. (US 2008/0162713 A1) discloses a system where transrate/transcode functionality of media processing units in devices distributed within a networked media system are harnessed to enable media streaming to devices across networks while overcoming insufficient bandwidth to transmit the source content or while providing reformatted media to devices that do not support the source format. A policy engine may reallocate media processing resources for greater efficiency. The policy engine may further schedule time-slicing of media segments in available hardware and software-based codecs. Time-slicing may be used to transformatively process one or more media streams across potentially multiple media processing units connected within a network. The media streams are divided into independently processable segments based upon knowledge of underlying media formats. Processing requirements and a priority processing order may be determined for and assigned to each independently processable segment. The segments may be scheduled for delivery to the media processing units based upon the assigned priority and processing requirements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3628