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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goel et al. (US Pub. 2016/0164788), herein referenced as Goel.
Regarding claim 1, Goel discloses “A method for dynamically downloading a video ([0028], [0032], [0034], [0039], Fig. 1, i.e., rate shaping used for video streaming application), comprising: determining a current video segment corresponding to a current playback time point during a playback process of a current video ([0030], [0039], [0053], Fig. 1, i.e., a rate shaper receives data packets or chunks of requested content during video streaming);
acquiring a cache decision threshold value corresponding to the current video segment ([0077], [0079], i.e., determining the amount of data in the client application buffer relative to the buffer threshold); and
determining a download strategy for the current video based on an amount of cached data that is currently cached and not played and the cache decision threshold value.” ([0045]-[0048], [0069], [0079], Figs. 1, 2A, i.e., a rate shaper receives content data over multiple network connections in parallel to increase the speed of content delivery to the client application. The rate shaper uses the amount of content data in the client application buffer relative to the buffer threshold to determine rate shaping and smooth the delivery of content data to the client application).
Regarding claim 11, Goel discloses “An electronic device comprising: at least one processor; and a storage apparatus, configured to store at least one program, wherein when the at least one program executed by the at least one processor ([0053], [0069], [0098], Figs. 1, 5), causes the at least one processor to implement a method for dynamically downloading a video, the method comprises: determining a current video segment corresponding to a current playback time point during a playback process of a current video ([0030], [0039], [0053], Fig. 1, i.e., a rate shaper receives data packets or chunks of requested content during video streaming);
acquiring a cache decision threshold value corresponding to the current video segment ([0077], [0079], i.e., determining the amount of data in the client application buffer relative to the buffer threshold); and
determining a download strategy for the current video based on an amount of cached data that is currently cached and not played and the cache decision threshold value.” ([0045]-[0048], [0069], [0079], Figs. 1, 2A, i.e., a rate shaper receives content data over multiple network connections in parallel to increase the speed of content delivery to the client application. The rate shaper uses the amount of content data in the client application buffer relative to the buffer threshold to determine rate shaping and smooth the delivery of content data to the client application).
Regarding claim 12, Goel discloses “A non-transient computer-readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions, when the computer-executable instructions executed by a computer processor ([0053], [0069], [0098], Figs. 1, 5), are used to perform a method for dynamically downloading a video, the method comprises: determining a current video segment corresponding to a current playback time point during a playback process of a current video ([0030], [0039], [0053], Fig. 1, i.e., a rate shaper receives data packets or chunks of requested content during video streaming);
acquiring a cache decision threshold value corresponding to the current video segment ([0077], [0079], i.e., determining the amount of data in the client application buffer relative to the buffer threshold); and
determining a download strategy for the current video based on an amount of cached data that is currently cached and not played and the cache decision threshold value.” ([0045]-[0048], [0069], [0079], Figs. 1, 2A, i.e., a rate shaper receives content data over multiple network connections in parallel to increase the speed of content delivery to the client application. The rate shaper uses the amount of content data in the client application buffer relative to the buffer threshold to determine rate shaping and smooth the delivery of content data to the client application).
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 2-3, 13-14, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel in view of Li (US Pub. 2014/0258854), herein referenced as Li.
Regarding claim 2, Goel fails to disclose “wherein the determining a current video segment corresponding to a current playback time point, comprises: determining a playback duration range corresponding to each video segment in distribution of video segments respectively; and determining the current video segment corresponding to the current playback time point according to a playback duration range to which the current playback time point belongs.”
Li teaches the technique of providing wherein the determining a current video segment corresponding to a current playback time point, comprises: determining a playback duration range corresponding to each video segment in distribution of video segments respectively ([0085]-[0086], Figs. 18-19, i.e., predefined locations 270-284 correspond to the starting points of different scenes or chapters--whether these scenes or chapters are predefined by the media program provider or by the user or other users); and determining the current video segment corresponding to the current playback time point according to a playback duration range to which the current playback time point belongs ([0027], Figs. 18-19, i.e., position indicator 130 on the scroll bar 120 indicates a time location of the present scene of the media program being displayed (with respect to the media program as a whole)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of determining a playback duration range corresponding to each video segment in distribution of video segments respectively; and determining the current video segment corresponding to the current playback time point according to a playback duration range to which the current playback time point belongs as taught by Li, to improve the rate shaping system of Goel for the predictable result of providing the viewer with visual indications of playback positions and scenes for easier media navigation.
Regarding claim 3, Goel fails to disclose “wherein a manner of determining the distribution of video segments, comprises: determining the distribution of video segments corresponding to the current video based on video duration of the current video.”
Li teaches the technique of determining the distribution of video segments corresponding to the current video based on video duration of the current video ([0027], [0085]-[0086], Figs. 18-19, i.e., predefined locations 270-284 correspond to the starting points of different scenes or chapters and wherein the scroll bar 120 may represent a total duration of the media program (for example, 3 hours for a 3-hour movie)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of determining the distribution of video segments corresponding to the current video based on video duration of the current video as taught by Li, to improve the rate shaping system of Goel for the predictable result of providing the viewer with visual indications of playback positions and scenes for easier media navigation.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, claim 4 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 4, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel in view of Li and in further view of Gillies et al. (US Pub. 2012/0259994), herein referenced as Gillies.
Regarding claim 4, the combination fails to disclose “herein a manner of determining the distribution of video segments, comprises: determining the distribution of video segments corresponding to the current video according to video resolution of the current video.”
Gillies teaches the technique of determining the distribution of video segments corresponding to the current video according to video resolution of the current video ([0010], [0055], [0057], [0134], Fig. 6, i.e., an MPD includes different rendering of the same video referred to as representations. Representations can have different encoding types such as bitrate and resolution (qualities) and include one or more segments. Figure 6 illustrates different representations with different temporal duration of segments (different distributions of video segments). That is, playback of a selected representation or video stream having differing segment lengths according to a video resolution of the video). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of determining the distribution of video segments corresponding to the current video according to video resolution of the current video as taught by Gillies, to improve the rate shaping system of Goel for the predictable result of accommodating various clients with differing processing capabilities.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Q Huerta whose telephone number is (571)270-3582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 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, 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.
/ALEXANDER Q HUERTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 January 8, 2026