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, see pages 6+ of Remarks, filed 01/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Marquess et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0108521).
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, 4-7, 10-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schooler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0191857) in view of Marquess et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0108521).
Regarding claim 1, Schooler et al. discloses a method for content transmission, comprising:
in response to receiving a first request for content from a client, obtaining a plurality of pieces of content, wherein the first request comprises a user identifier (see paragraphs 0019-0021, 0030; receiving playback requests with metadata including user identification);
splitting the plurality of pieces of content into a plurality of groups of content (see paragraphs 0024-0026; dividing videos into multiple chunks/groups);
transmitting a first group of content in the plurality of groups of content to the client (see paragraphs 0044, 0037-0038, fig. 3 (380); streaming cached video chunks to user devices in response to requests);
storing other groups of content in the plurality of groups of content in association with the user identifier in a cache (see paragraphs 0026-0030; caching chunks with metadata including user ID);
responding to subsequent requests comprising the user identifier by transmitting additional cached groups of content to the client (see paragraphs 0030-0038).
However, Schooler et al. is silent as to the cache is short-lived or that cache is deleted after expiry of a duration.
Marquess et al. teaches an intermediate network device that stores user preference information in a session cache associated with a user identifier/session ID (see paragraphs 0033-0040) and that the session cache is short-lived and that session settings are deleted after a period of inactivity, monitored by a timer (see paragraphs 0040-0042).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schooler et al. with the teachings of Marquess et al., the motivation being to optimize system performance and user experience.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 4, 10 and 16, Schooler et al. and Marquess et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (claims 1, 7 and 13). Schooler et al. discloses wherein the method is performed by a content providing server, and obtaining the plurality of pieces of content comprises: in response to receiving the first request from the client, generating the plurality of pieces of content (see paragraphs 0019-0021, 0024-0026, 0037-0038).
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 17, Schooler et al. and Marquess et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (claims 1, 7 and 13). Marquess et al. discloses wherein the method is performed by a content distribution network device, and obtaining the plurality of pieces of content comprises (see paragraph 0018):
forwarding the first request received from the client to a content providing server (see paragraphs 0046-0049 and fig. 4); and
receiving the plurality of pieces of content from the content providing server (see paragraphs 0047-0049 and fig. 4).
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 18, Schooler et al. and Marquess et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (claims 1, 7 and 13). Marquess et al. discloses wherein the request comprises a hypertext transfer protocol request (see paragraphs 0006, 0021-0023, 0046-0049, fig. 4).
Claims 3, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schooler et al. and Marquess et al. as applied to claims 1, 7 and 13 above, and further in view of Beals et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0282808).
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 15, Schooler et al. and Marquess et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (claims 1, 7 and 13). However, Schooler et al. and Marquess et al. are silent as to transmitting, to the client, an indication indicating that the first group of content is part of the plurality of groups of content.
Beals et al. discloses transmitting, to the client, an indication indicating that the first group of content is part of the plurality of groups of content (see paragraph 0017).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schooler et al. and Marquess et al. with the teachings of Beals et al., the motivation being to determine when all data has been received in order to decrypt audio visual content.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schooler et al. and Marquess et al. as applied to claims 1, 7 and 13 above, and further in view of Bertz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,091,553).
Regarding claims 19, 20 and 21, Schooler et al. and Marquess et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (claims 1, 7 and 13). However, Schooler et al. and Marquess et al. are silent as to wherein the splitting comprises: splitting the plurality of pieces of content into a plurality of groups of content based on a network condition with the client.
Bertz et al. discloses wherein the splitting comprises: splitting the plurality of pieces of content into a plurality of groups of content based on a network condition with the client (see col. 6, lines 34-52).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schooler et al. and Marquess et al. with the teachings of Bertz et al., the motivation being to improve resolution and frame rate.
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 NNENNA NGOZI EKPO whose telephone number is (571)270-1663. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 10:00am - 6:30pm, TH-F 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
NNENNA EKPO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/NNENNA N EKPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 January 28, 2026.