DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
iThe 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is first noted that while claim 1 is listed as “Original” and applicant states that “No amendments have been made to the claims in this response.” (see page 14 of applicant’s response), claim 1 in fact includes new limitations which are underlined to represent them as newly presented language.
On pages 11-13, of applicant’s response, applicant argues that Yoo fails to specifically disclose “determining that the second fragment of the content is expected to be stored at the content storage device within a defined time period”.
In response, as indicated within the rejections, Yoo discloses determining if a pending request already exists for a requested content item (paragraph 19-20, 27, 32-33).
If it is determined that a pending request already exists, later requests for that same content item are held for a response period (paragraph 19, 27-28, 32-34).
Thus, for every request received after the first request, the cache has determined that the content fragment is expected to be stored at the content storage device within a defined time period (content that is not yet available but is expected to arrive within the response time period; paragraph 19-20, 27, 32-33).
This is seen in that the content is instead assumed to lost and requiring corrective action when the content does not arrive before the response period expires (paragraph 19, 34).
Thus, Yoo clearly discloses “determining that the second fragment of the content is expected to be stored at the content storage device within a defined time period”, as the system determines that another user previously requested the content and will thus hold the for the expected time period it will take for the content to arrive.
The content is expected to arrive within that time period, with exceeding of the time period instead indicating the content failed to arrive and been lost.
Applicant argues, on page 12 of applicant’s response, that the time period within Yoo is a configurable parameter.
In response, it is noted that paragraph 22 of Yoo indicates that “An administrator can configure whether the system holds requests as described herein, how long the system holds requests before sending additional requests”.
More specifically, as shown above, the configured time period determines how long the system holds requests before sending additional requests, as any request exceeding the time period is assumed to be lost and require corrective action (such as additional requests).
This clearly meets the current broad claim language as the content is “expected” to be received within that holding time period, within anything exceeding that time period requiring corrective action as being outside the normal desired operation of the system, such as failing to arrive.
Independent claims 8 and 15 (unlike amended claim 1) do not include any particular requirement as to how the determination is made or what the determination is based upon.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is reminded as to the proper method to amend claims, as claim 1 has been presented with an incorrect status identifying the claim as (Original) while the claim also includes new limitations with markings indicating the changes made within the claim.
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 8, 13-15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurst (US 2012/0210216) (of record) in view of Yoo et al. (Yoo) (US 2010/0268789) (of record).
As to claim 8, while Hurst discloses a method of delivering content (to client device, 204; paragraph 27-29), comprising:
causing a viewing device to receive fragment-level metadata associated with a first fragment of content (metadata indexing streamlets/objects of the media; paragraph 48-50);
receiving, from the viewing device, a request for a second fragment of the content (client device requesting particular streamlet; paragraph 36-38, 41-42, 48-50), the second fragment of the content being immediately subsequent to the first fragment of the content (client device sequentially requesting next streamlet in media stream for forward playback based upon index metadata; paragraph 36-38, 41-42, 48-50),
transmitting the second fragment of the content to the viewing device (see Fig. 3, paragraph 45, 48, 50, 53-54),
they fail to specifically disclose
determining that the second fragment of the content is not stored at a content storage device at a time of receiving the request;
determining that the second fragment of the content is expected to be stored at the content storage device within a defined time period;
responsive to the determination that the second fragment of the content is not stored at the content storage device and the determination that the second fragment of the content is expected to be stored at the content storage device within the defined time period, holding the received request for the defined time period;
determining, prior to expiration of the defined time period, that the second fragment of the content is stored at the content storage device.
In an analogous art, Yoo discloses a system for transmitting content (Fig. 1; paragraph 13-15) which will determine that a second fragment of the content (individually cacheable and requestable fragments of media presentation; paragraph 35) is not stored at a content storage device at a time of receiving a request (“cache miss” for requested content; paragraph 16, 27, 32-33, 35), determine that the second fragment of the content is expected to be stored at the content storage device within a defined time period (pending requests are to be held for a response period; paragraph 19, 27-28, 32-34), responsive to the determination that the second fragment of the content is not stored at the content storage device and the determination that the second fragment of the content is expected to be stored at the content storage device within the defined time period, holding the received request for the defined time period (paragraph 27-28, 32-33), and determine, prior to expiration of the defined time period, that the second fragment of the content is stored at the content storage device (responding to held request when content fragment finally arrives; paragraph 28, 31, 33) so as to reduce the burden and network consumption of the origin serving live content, lower the resource requirements of the origin server, and provide caching not previously available to live content (paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hurst’s system to include determining that the second fragment of the content is not stored at a content storage device at a time of receiving the request, determining that the second fragment of the content is expected to be stored at the content storage device within a defined time period, responsive to the determination that the second fragment of the content is not stored at the content storage device and the determination that the second fragment of the content is expected to be stored at the content storage device within the defined time period, holding the received request for the defined time period, and determining, prior to expiration of the defined time period, that the second fragment of the content is stored at the content storage device, as taught in combination with Yoo, for the typical benefit of reducing the burden and network consumption of the origin serving live content, lowering the resource requirements of the origin server, and providing caching not previously available to live content (paragraph 7).
As to claim 15, while Hurst discloses a system for delivering content (Fig. 2), comprising:
at least one device including a hardware processor (client device, 204; paragraph 27-29), the system being configured to perform operations comprising:
causing a viewing device to receive fragment-level metadata associated with a first fragment of content (metadata indexing streamlets/objects of the media; paragraph 48-50);
receiving, from the viewing device, a request for a second fragment of the content (client device requesting particular streamlet; paragraph 36-38, 41-42, 48-50), the second fragment of the content being immediately subsequent to the first fragment of the content (client device sequentially requesting next streamlet in media stream for forward playback based upon index metadata; paragraph 36-38, 41-42, 48-50),
transmitting the second fragment of the content to the viewing device (see Fig. 3, paragraph 45, 48, 50, 53-54),
they fail to specifically disclose
determining that the second fragment of the content is not stored at a content storage device at a time of receiving the request;
determining that the second fragment of the content is expected to be stored at the content storage device within a defined time period;
responsive to the determination that the second fragment of the content is not stored at the content storage device and the determination that the second fragment of the content is expected to be stored at the content storage device within the defined time period, holding the received request for the defined time period;
determining, prior to expiration of the defined time period, that the second fragment of the content is stored at the content storage device.
In an analogous art, Yoo discloses a system for transmitting content (Fig. 1; paragraph 13-15) which will determine that a second fragment of the content (individually cacheable and requestable fragments of media presentation; paragraph 35) is not stored at a content storage device at a time of receiving a request (“cache miss” for requested content; paragraph 16, 27, 32-33, 35), determine that the second fragment of the content is expected to be stored at the content storage device within a defined time period (pending requests are to be held for a response period; paragraph 19, 27-28, 32-34), responsive to the determination that the second fragment of the content is not stored at the content storage device and the determination that the second fragment of the content is expected to be stored at the content storage device within the defined time period, holding the received request for the defined time period (paragraph 27-28, 32-33), and determine, prior to expiration of the defined time period, that the second fragment of the content is stored at the content storage device (responding to held request when content fragment finally arrives; paragraph 28, 31, 33) so as to reduce the burden and network consumption of the origin serving live content, lower the resource requirements of the origin server, and provide caching not previously available to live content (paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hurst’s system to include determining that the second fragment of the content is not stored at a content storage device at a time of receiving the request, determining that the second fragment of the content is expected to be stored at the content storage device within a defined time period, responsive to the determination that the second fragment of the content is not stored at the content storage device and the determination that the second fragment of the content is expected to be stored at the content storage device within the defined time period, holding the received request for the defined time period, and determining, prior to expiration of the defined time period, that the second fragment of the content is stored at the content storage device, as taught in combination with Yoo, for the typical benefit of reducing the burden and network consumption of the origin serving live content, lowering the resource requirements of the origin server, and providing caching not previously available to live content (paragraph 7).
As to claim 13, 19, Hurst and Yoo disclose causing a second viewing device (see Hurst at Fig. 2, paragraph 27-29, and Yoo at paragraph 15) to receive fragment-level metadata associated with a third fragment of content (metadata indexing streamlets/objects of the media; see Hurst at paragraph 48-50);
receiving, from the viewing device, a request for a fourth fragment of the content, the fourth fragment of the content being immediately subsequent to the third fragment of the content (client device requesting streamlet in media stream based upon index metadata; see Hurst at Fig. 2, paragraph 36-38, 41-42, 48-50 and Yoo at paragraph 16, 27, 32-33, 35)
determining that the fourth fragment of the content is not stored at a content storage device at a time of receiving the request (“cache miss” for requested content fragments; see Yoo at paragraph 16, 27, 32-33, 35),
determining that the fourth fragment of the content is not expected to be stored at the content storage device within the defined time period (origin failing to respond with segment within response time; see Yoo paragraph 19, 34), and
responsive to the determination that the fourth fragment of the content is not stored at the content storage device and the determination that the fourth fragment of the content is not expected to be stored at the content storage device within the defined time period, transmitting, to the second viewing device, an error message indicating that the fourth fragment is not available (failure response to all pending requests that were waiting on the response; see Yoo at paragraph 19, 34).
As to claim 14, 20, Hurst and Yoo disclose causing a third viewing device (see Hurst at Fig. 2, paragraph 27-29, and Yoo at paragraph 15) to receive fragment-level metadata associated with a fifth fragment of content (metadata indexing streamlets/objects of the media; see Hurst at paragraph 48-50);
receiving, from the third viewing device, a request for a sixth fragment of the content, the sixth fragment of the content being immediately subsequent to the fifth fragment of the content (client device requesting streamlet in media stream based upon index metadata; see Hurst at Fig. 2, paragraph 36-38, 41-42, 48-50 and Yoo at paragraph 16, 27, 32-33, 35)
determining that the sixth fragment of the content is not stored at a content storage device at a time of receiving the request (“cache miss” for requested content fragments; see Yoo at paragraph 16, 27, 32-33, 35),
determining that the sixth fragment of the content is expected to be stored at the content storage device within the defined time period (see Yoo at paragraph 27-28, 32-33),
responsive to the determination that the sixth fragment of the content is not stored at the content storage device and the determination that the sixth fragment of the content is expected to be stored at the content storage device within the defined time period, holding the received request for the defined time period (holding pending requests for response period; see Yoo at paragraph 27-28, 32-34),
determining, upon expiration of the defined time period, that the sixth fragment of the content is not stored at the content storage device (see Yoo at paragraph 19, 34); and
responsive to the determination that the sixth fragment of the content is not stored at the content storage device upon expiration of the defined time period, transmitting, to the third viewing device, an error message indicating that the sixth fragment is not available (failure response to all pending requests that were waiting on the response; see Yoo at paragraph 19, 34).
Claims 9-11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurst and Yoo and further in view of Koceski et al. (Koceski) (US 11,871,050) (of record).
As to claims 9, 16, Hurst and Yoo fail to specifically disclose subsequent to transmitting the second fragment to the viewing device, causing the viewing device to receive fragment-level metadata associated with the second fragment of the content.
In an analogous art, Koceski discloses a system for streaming content to a client viewing device (Fig. 1, column 2, line 42-column 3, line 16) which will cause the viewing device to receive fragment-level metadata associated with a second fragment of the content subsequent to transmitting the second fragment to the viewing device (receiving updated manifest information with updated metadata for earlier ad segments; Fig. 6B, column 6, line 54-column 7, line 11) so as to provide more updated targeted ad segments based upon user engagement (column 6, line 62-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hurst and Yoo’s system to include subsequent to transmitting the second fragment to the viewing device, causing the viewing device to receive fragment-level metadata associated with the second fragment of the content, as taught in combination with Koceski, for the typical benefit of providing more updated targeted ad segments based upon user engagement (column 6, line 62-67).
As to claims 10, 17, Hurst, Yoo and Koceski disclose causing the viewing device to process the second fragment of the content, responsive to the viewing device receiving the fragment-level metadata associated with the second fragment of the content (see Hurst at paragraph 36-38, 41-42, 48-50 and Koceski at Fig. 6B, column 6, line 54-column 7, line 11).
As to claim 11, Hurst, Yoo and Koceski disclose wherein processing the second fragment of the content comprises one or more of: decoding the second fragment of the content (see Hurst at paragraph 18-22, 45, 50, 53-54); adding the decoded content stored in the second fragment to a playback buffer for playback, or performing a data analysis of the decoded second fragment of content.
Claims 12, 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurst and Yoo and further in view of Swaminathan et al. (Swaminathan) (US 2013/0191489) (of record).
As to claims 12, 18, while Hurst and Yoo disclose causing the viewing device to process the second fragment of the content, responsive to the viewing device receiving the second fragment of the content (see Hurst at paragraph 18-22, 45, 50, 53-54), they fail to specifically disclose wherein the viewing device processes the second fragment of content without receiving fragment-level metadata associated with the second fragment of the content.
In an analogous art, Swaminathan discloses a system for streaming content to a client viewing device (Fig. 1-3, paragraph 23, 33, 35) wherein the viewing device processes a second fragment of content without receiving fragment-level metadata associated with the second fragment of the content (requesting subsequent fragments based upon offset from a first fragment in a run table; paragraph 44-47, 50-54) which reduces the required data transmission by providing information to access media content such as a movie partitioned into multiple segments without requiring entries for each individual fragment (paragraph 46-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hurst and Yoo’s system to include wherein the viewing device processes the second fragment of content without receiving fragment-level metadata associated with the second fragment of the content, as taught in combination with Koceski, for the typical benefit of reducing the required data transmission by providing information to access media content such as a movie partitioned into multiple segments without requiring entries for each individual fragment (paragraph 46-47).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are allowed.
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 James R Sheleheda whose telephone number is (571)272-7357. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm CST.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at (571) 272-3982. 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.
/James R Sheleheda/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
i
Prosecution Insights