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 Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment to the specification dated 09/30/2024 has been fully considered and is entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim should end with a period. In the instant case, the claim ends with “, and” which suggests that a portion of the claim is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, recitations “repository configured to store” and “database configured to store” are ambiguous because it is unclear what type of configuring is necessary for the repository and a database to perform its inherent function of storing data. Applicants are advised to either replace “configured to store” with “storing” or explain what “configured” for the repository and for the database entails.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fuller et al. (US 2017/0188071 A1).
As to claim 1, Fuller teaches a system for dynamically modifying media content before delivery to a content consumption device (abstract), the system comprising:
a media essence repository configured to store a plurality of media assets [content storage 122] (Fig. 1);
a media essence access database configured to store access metadata that indicates access information for the plurality of media assets, including a media location metadata for identifying a location of each of the plurality of media assets in the media essence repository [a lookup table for the stored content of the media server in the form of a metadata] (par. [0030]);
a media processing database configured to receive a plurality of media content manipulation functions for modifying at least one parameter of media content and further configured to assign a unique identification to each of the plurality of media content manipulation functions [memory storing a playlist of content segments, where segments are encoded in multiple resolutions, each version having a separate link that identifies each available content manipulation option (par. [0031]-[0032]);
a cloud resource database comprising metadata associated with a plurality of resources available in a cloud computing network that includes both physical resources and software resources, with the resources comprising a plurality of processors and electronic memory accessible by the plurality of processors [operating system 114] (par. [0024]);
a content delivery manager [software modules implementing the media server 102] configured to:
receive a request from a client device to dynamically manipulate and deliver a modified media content to the client device [step 214 request for a specific segment of the video content that includes the identification of a type of codec for which the video segment is to be transcoded] (par. [0041]),
access a media asset of the plurality of media assets in the media essence repository based on the corresponding access information in the media essence access database that is obtained by a media content identification in the request from the client device (par. [0032]),
determine a desired media content manipulation function of the plurality of media content manipulation functions based on the unique identification in the media processing database that is accessed in response to the request from the client device (par. [0033], [0042]),
locate an available resource of the plurality of resources available in the cloud computing network for executing the desired media content manipulation function to modify the at least one parameter of the accessed media content (par. [0049]), and
control the located available resource to decompress and execute the desired media content manipulation function to generate a modified media content that is delivered to an application programming interface (API) of the client device to be displayed thereon [performing just-in-time transcoding and delivering transcoded content to the client display device utilizing I/O interface 430] (step 216 par. [0042], [0054]).
As to claim 2, Fuller teaches that the plurality of processors includes at least one of a computer processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), and a field programmable gate array (FPGA) (par. [0023]).
As to claim 5, Fuller teaches that the media processing database is further configured to dynamically update the plurality of media content manipulation functions in response to adjustments of modification aspects of each media content manipulation function [types of available codes are dependent of the type of device on which the video segment is to be played] (par. [0041]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller et al. in view of Lasko (US 2014/0118541 A1).
As to claim 3, Fuller teaches all the elements except that the plurality of media content manipulation functions include a color transform being at least one of a mathematical, algorithmic and heuristic function.
Lasko is directed to transcoding and mixing of video data (abstract). In particular, Lasko teaches the plurality of media content manipulation functions include a color transform being at least one of a mathematical, algorithmic and heuristic function (par. [0005], [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Fuller by having the plurality of media content manipulation functions include a color transform being at least one of a mathematical, algorithmic and heuristic function in order to create new views of displayed video data streams (par. [0004] in Lasko).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller et al. in view of Lasko and in further view of Tang et al. (US 2022/0191522 A1).
As to claim 4, Fuller in view of Lasko teaches all the elements except that the plurality of media assets comprise at least one media stream having a plurality of video frames, such that the desired media content manipulation function modifies the at least one aspect of the accessed media content on a frame by frame basis before the modified media content is delivered to the API of the client device.
Tang is directed to techniques for transcoding video (abstract). In particular, Tang teaches that the plurality of media assets comprise at least one media stream having a plurality of video frames, such that the desired media content manipulation function modifies the at least one aspect of the accessed media content on a frame by frame basis before the modified media content is delivered to the API of the client device (Fig. 2, par. [0046], [0053]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Fuller in view of Lasko by having the plurality of media assets comprise at least one media stream having a plurality of video frames, such that the desired media content manipulation function modifies the at least one aspect of the accessed media content on a frame by frame basis before the modified media content is delivered to the API of the client device, in order to avoid frame loss, frame drop, or sound and picture non-synchronization (par. [0004] in Tang).
Related Prior Art
Gavade et al. (US 2017/0223394 A1) is directed to a method and a system for cloud-based media content transcoding (abstract). In particular, Gavade teaches performing cloud-based transcoding of the program segments (par. [0044], [0047]) and serve the client requested transcoded portions of the program segments (par. [0051]-[0052]). Therefore, teachings of Gavade are applicable to the claimed invention and could be used in the rejection of the pending claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457