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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the content storage device" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 8, recites “a content storage device” which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if this is meant to referenced the content storage device of line 6 or a different content storage device.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the content storage device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8, line 6, recites “a content storage device” which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if this is meant to referenced the content storage device of line 4 or a different content storage device.
Claim 8, line 2-3, recites “content” which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if this is meant to reference the content of line 1 or different content.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the content storage device" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15, line 8, recites “a content storage device” which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if this is meant to referenced the content storage device of line 6 or a different content storage device.
Claim 15, line 4-5, recites “content” which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if this is meant to reference the content of line 1 or different content.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hurst (US 2012/0210216).
As to claim 1, Hurst discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors (within client device, 204; paragraph 27-29), cause execution of operations comprising:
receiving, at a viewing device, metadata associated with a first fragment of content (metadata indexing streamlets/objects of the media; paragraph 48-50);
transmitting, from the viewing device to the content storage device, a first request for the first fragment of the content (client device requesting particular streamlet; paragraph 36-38, 41-42, 48-50);
transmitting, from the viewing device to a content storage device, a second request for a second fragment of the content (client device sequentially requesting next streamlet in media stream based upon index metadata; paragraph 36-38, 41-42, 48-50), the second fragment of the content immediately preceding the first fragment of the content (requesting preceding streamlet if a trickplay rewind command requested the streamlets in reverse; paragraph 22-24, 43-48, 53);
receiving, at the viewing device, the first fragment of the content and the second fragment of the content (see Fig. 3, paragraph 45, 48, 50, 53-54); and
processing the first fragment of the content and the second fragment of the content (decoded and presented for playback; see Fig. 3, paragraph 45, 48, 50, 53-54).
As to claim 8, Hurst discloses a method of transmitting content (to client device, 204; paragraph 27-29), comprising:
receiving, at a viewing device, metadata associated with a first fragment of content (metadata indexing streamlets/objects of the media; paragraph 48-50);
transmitting, from the viewing device to the content storage device, a first request for the first fragment of the content (client device requesting particular streamlet; paragraph 36-38, 41-42, 48-50);
transmitting, from the viewing device to a content storage device, a second request for a second fragment of the content (client device sequentially requesting next streamlet in media stream based upon index metadata; paragraph 36-38, 41-42, 48-50), the second fragment of the content immediately preceding the first fragment of the content (requesting preceding streamlet if a trickplay rewind command requested the streamlets in reverse; paragraph 22-24, 43-48, 53);
receiving, at the viewing device, the first fragment of the content and the second fragment of the content (see Fig. 3, paragraph 45, 48, 50, 53-54); and
processing the first fragment of the content and the second fragment of the content (decoded and presented for playback; see Fig. 3, paragraph 45, 48, 50, 53-54).
As to claim 15, Hurst discloses a system for transmitting 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:
receiving, at a viewing device, metadata associated with a first fragment of content (metadata indexing streamlets/objects of the media; paragraph 48-50);
transmitting, from the viewing device to the content storage device, a first request for the first fragment of the content (client device requesting particular streamlet; paragraph 36-38, 41-42, 48-50);
transmitting, from the viewing device to a content storage device, a second request for a second fragment of the content (client device sequentially requesting next streamlet in media stream based upon index metadata; paragraph 36-38, 41-42, 48-50), the second fragment of the content immediately preceding the first fragment of the content (requesting preceding streamlet if a trickplay rewind command requested the streamlets in reverse; paragraph 22-24, 43-48, 53);
receiving, at the viewing device, the first fragment of the content and the second fragment of the content (see Fig. 3, paragraph 45, 48, 50, 53-54); and
processing the first fragment of the content and the second fragment of the content (decoded and presented for playback; see Fig. 3, paragraph 45, 48, 50, 53-54).
As to claim 2, 9, 16, Hurst discloses wherein the second fragment of the content is received at the viewing device from the content storage device, subsequent to the viewing device transmitting the first request and the second request (only receiving the requested second fragment after the request is transmitted to the server; see Fig. 3, paragraph 45, 48, 50, 53-54).
As to claim 6, 13, 19, Hurst discloses the operations further comprising transmitting, from the viewing device to the content storage device, one or more additional requests for content, the one or more additional requests corresponding to one or more fragments immediately preceding the second fragment of the content (continuing to request preceding streamlets if a trickplay rewind command requested the streamlets in reverse; paragraph 22-24, 43-48, 53);
As to claim 7, 14, 20, Hurst discloses wherein a number of the additional requests is sufficient to request all fragments of the content preceding the second fragment of the content (wherein continued reverse trickplay would eventually request streamlets to the start of the content; paragraph 22-24, 43-48, 53).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Major et al. (Major) (US 2005/0262257).
As to claim 1, Major discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors (client 104 running software module 114; paragraph 43-44, 52), cause execution of operations comprising:
receiving, at a viewing device, metadata associated with a first fragment of content (metadata identifying requestable streamlets; paragraph 47, 50, 55, 57);
transmitting, from the viewing device to the content storage device, a first request for the first fragment of the content (requesting particular streamlet; paragraph 54-57);
transmitting, from the viewing device to a content storage device, a second request for a second fragment of the content (client device requesting additional streamlets in media stream; paragraph 54-57), the second fragment of the content immediately preceding the first fragment of the content (requesting preceding streamlet if a trickplay rewind command requested the streamlets in reverse; paragraph 54-57);
receiving, at the viewing device, the first fragment of the content and the second fragment of the content (paragraph 54-57, 68-69); and
processing the first fragment of the content and the second fragment of the content (streamlets sent to viewer for playback, paragraph 52-54, 69).
As to claim 8, Major discloses a method of transmitting content (transmitted to client 104 running software module 114; see Fig. 1, paragraph 43-44, 52), comprising:
receiving, at a viewing device, metadata associated with a first fragment of content (metadata identifying requestable streamlets; paragraph 47, 50, 55, 57);
transmitting, from the viewing device to the content storage device, a first request for the first fragment of the content (requesting particular streamlet; paragraph 54-57);
transmitting, from the viewing device to a content storage device, a second request for a second fragment of the content (client device requesting additional streamlets in media stream; paragraph 54-57), the second fragment of the content immediately preceding the first fragment of the content (requesting preceding streamlet if a trickplay rewind command requested the streamlets in reverse; paragraph 54-57);
receiving, at the viewing device, the first fragment of the content and the second fragment of the content (paragraph 54-57, 68-69); and
processing the first fragment of the content and the second fragment of the content (streamlets sent to viewer for playback, paragraph 52-54, 69).
As to claim 15, Major discloses a system for transmitting content (Fig. 1, 4), comprising:
at least one device including a hardware processor (client 104 running software module 114; paragraph 43-44, 52), the system being configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at a viewing device, metadata associated with a first fragment of content (metadata identifying requestable streamlets; paragraph 47, 50, 55, 57);
transmitting, from the viewing device to the content storage device, a first request for the first fragment of the content (requesting particular streamlet; paragraph 54-57);
transmitting, from the viewing device to a content storage device, a second request for a second fragment of the content (client device requesting additional streamlets in media stream; paragraph 54-57), the second fragment of the content immediately preceding the first fragment of the content (requesting preceding streamlet if a trickplay rewind command requested the streamlets in reverse; paragraph 54-57);
receiving, at the viewing device, the first fragment of the content and the second fragment of the content (paragraph 54-57, 68-69); and
processing the first fragment of the content and the second fragment of the content (streamlets sent to viewer for playback, paragraph 52-54, 69).
As to claim 2, 9, 16, Major discloses wherein the second fragment of the content is received at the viewing device from the content storage device, subsequent to the viewing device transmitting the first request and the second request (receiving each streamlet after the streamlet was requested, with multiple requests being able to be transmitted together; paragraph 54-55, 58, 61).
As to claim 3, 10 and 17, Major discloses wherein the processing comprises adding the first fragment of content and the second fragment of content to a playback buffer for playback (Fig. 4, paragraph 54-55).
As to claim 4, 11, Major discloses wherein the first fragment of the content and the second fragment of the content are added to the playback buffer based on their respective positions in the content (arranged in sequence for playback; Fig. 4, paragraph 54-55, 73).
As to claim 5, 12, 18, Major discloses wherein the viewing device effects playback of the content when the playback buffer exceeds a threshold length (Fig. 4, paragraph 54-55, 73).
As to claim 6, 13, 19, Major discloses the operations further comprising transmitting, from the viewing device to the content storage device, one or more additional requests for content, the one or more additional requests corresponding to one or more fragments immediately preceding the second fragment of the content (paragraph 54-57).
As to claim 7, 14, 20, Major discloses wherein a number of the additional requests is sufficient to request all fragments of the content preceding the second fragment of the content (wherein continued reverse trickplay would eventually request streamlets to the start of the content index; paragraph 54-57).
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 3-5, 10-12, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurst in view of Shribman et al. (Shribman) (US 2016/0337426).
As to claim 3, 10, 17, Hurst fails to specifically disclose wherein the processing comprises adding the first fragment of content and the second fragment of content to a playback buffer for playback.
In an analogous art, Shribman discloses a system for transmitting content (Fig. 10; paragraph 393) wherein content segments received at the receiver are added to a playback buffer for playback (Fig. 11b, paragraph 407-409) so as to smooth fluctuations, interruptions, and other impairments in the service and allow continuous, reliable, and undisturbed service to the user by having at all times a content of a minimum playing time in the buffer (paragraph 407).
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 wherein the processing comprises adding the first fragment of content and the second fragment of content to a playback buffer for playback, as taught in combination with Shribman, for the typical benefit of smoothing fluctuations, interruptions, and other impairments in the service and allowing continuous, reliable, and undisturbed service to the user (paragraph 407).
As to claim 4, 11, Hurst and Shribman disclose wherein the first fragment of the content and the second fragment of the content are added to the playback buffer based on their respective positions in the content (see Shribman at Fig. 11b, paragraph 407-409).
As to claim 5, 12, 18, Hurst and Shribman disclose wherein the viewing device effects playback of the content when the playback buffer exceeds a threshold length (minimum playing time in the buffer; see Shribman at Fig. 11b, paragraph 407-409).
Conclusion
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