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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an AMENDMENT entered on July 30, 2026 for patent application 18/901,360 filed on September 30, 2024.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
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 21-24, 29, 30, 33, 34, 37, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0238390) in view of Bichot et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0143627).
Regarding claim 21, Martin discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations for transporting data over content delivery networks, the operations comprising: segmenting a plurality of segments (para. [0014]); generating a first chunk of a new segment (Fig. 4, para. [0050]. In the vernacular of Martin, a chunk is larger than a segment, while in Applicant’s vernacular, a segment is larger than a chunk. This is important to keep in mind when mapping the disclosure of Martin to Applicant’s claim language.); appending information associated with the new segment to a manifest file (Fig. 4, elements 400, 401, 402 and 403A-C, paras. [0049]-[0057]), the manifest file including information indicating a byte range of the plurality of segments (paras. [0077]-[0078]); transmitting the manifest file to a receiver (Fig. 4, elements 403A-C, para. [0057]); receiving a request for the new segment from the receiver (Fig. 4, element 410, para. [0077]); upon receiving the request, transmitting the first chunk to the receiver (Fig. 4, elements 411A-C and 412, paras. [0078] and [0079]).
Although the byte ranges of Martin correspond to the timing of the content, it could be argued that Martin does not explicitly disclose the manifest file including information indicating a timing sequence of the plurality of segments (emphasis added by Examiner), and although, as Martin is capable of generating a first chunk, it would be obvious that Martin would therefore generate a second chunk, it could be argued that Martin does not inherently disclose generating a second chunk of the new segment; and transmitting the second chunk to the receiver. However, in analogous art, Bichot discloses a method for video content delivery, wherein “[c]hunks are of equal duration with respect to the audio and/or video content. This chunk duration defines a minimum bulk transfer time unit between the originating server OSERV 150 and the cache server CSERV 130, and more importantly between the cache server CSERV 130 and the at least one client devices CL 140. The originating server OSERV 150 is configured to generate chunks with a chunk duration function of the minimum RTT the audio and/or video content delivery system 100 is expected to deal with. For instance it could be 50 milliseconds (para. [0040]),” and “[b]ecause, according to RTT value, the bulk duration may be different across sessions or can be dynamically updated, and since the information representative of the appropriate timing for requesting a segment (e.g., availabilityTimeOffset according to MPEG DASH) is static in the manifest file, it may occur that the client device CL 140 requests a segment for which enough chunk data are not yet available to form an appropriate bulk and start sending the response (para. [0072]),” which teaches both that a plurality of chunks can be generated, as well as that manifest files and contain timing information for requesting a segment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin to allow for the manifest file to include information indicating a timing sequence of the plurality of segments, and for generating a second chunk of the new segment, and transmitting the second chunk to the receiver. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for well-known techniques to be used to deliver the content properly.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Martin and Bichot discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 21, and further discloses wherein at least some of the segments in the plurality of segments have a fixed duration or a variable duration (para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Martin and Bichot discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 21, and further discloses wherein the new segment includes at least one packet (paras. [0005]-[0007]. HTTP based streaming over the internet axiomatically uses packets.).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Martin and Bichot discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 21, and further discloses wherein the manifest file includes at least one of a format tag, a segment format tag, a version tag, a target duration tag, a media sequence tag, or segment information (para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Martin and Bichot discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 21, and further discloses wherein the operations further comprise determining whether the receiver did not receive data (paras. [0002]-[0005]. Streaming systems such as MPEG DASH and HLS are built on top of HTTP, which is itself using a TCP transmission protocol. As part of the TCP transmission protocol, any lost packet will be re-transmitted. As such it is axiomatic in any system such as the one detailed in Martin that request for retransmission will be received and the corresponding content will be retransmitted.).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Martin and Bichot discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 29, and further discloses wherein upon determining the receiver did not receive data, issuing a request to re-transmit the data that was not received (paras. [0002]-[0005]. Streaming systems such as MPEG DASH and HLS are built on top of HTTP, which is itself using a TCP transmission protocol. As part of the TCP transmission protocol, any lost packet will be re-transmitted. As such it is axiomatic in any system such as the one detailed in Martin that request for retransmission will be received and the corresponding content will be retransmitted.).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Martin and Bichot discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 21, and further discloses wherein the receiver initiates a download for the segment (Fig. 4, element 410, para. [0077]).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Martin and Bichot discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 33, and further discloses wherein the receiver maintains a buffer of packets for the segment being downloaded (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Martin and Bichot discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 21, and further discloses wherein the transmitting occurs through a content delivery network (para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Martin and Bichot discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 21, and further discloses wherein the transmission of chunks associated with the segment does not require a new request for each chunk (para. [0014]. As in Martin, each chunk contains multiple segments, the opposite of Applicant’s disclosure, then axiomatically a request is not required for each chunk, as a segment contains a plurality of chunks.).
Regarding claim 40, Martin discloses a computer-implemented method for transporting data over content delivery networks, the method comprising: segmenting a plurality of segments (para. [0014]); generating a first chunk of a new segment (Fig. 4, para. [0050]. In the vernacular of Martin, a chunk is larger than a segment, while in Applicant’s vernacular, a segment is larger than a chunk. This is important to keep in mind when mapping the disclosure of Martin to Applicant’s claim language.); appending information associated with the new segment to a manifest file (Fig. 4, elements 400, 401, 402 and 403A-C, paras. [0049]-[0057]), the manifest file including information indicating a byte range of the plurality of segments (paras. [0077]-[0078]); transmitting the manifest file to a receiver (Fig. 4, elements 403A-C, para. [0057]); receiving a request for the new segment from the receiver (Fig. 4, element 410, para. [0077]); upon receiving the request, transmitting the first chunk to the receiver (Fig. 4, elements 411A-C and 412, paras. [0078] and [0079]).
Although the byte ranges of Martin correspond to the timing of the content, it could be argued that Martin does not explicitly disclose the manifest file including information indicating a timing sequence of the plurality of segments (emphasis added by Examiner), and although, as Martin is capable of generating a first chunk, it would be obvious that Martin would therefore generate a second chunk, it could be argued that Martin does not inherently disclose generating a second chunk of the new segment; and transmitting the second chunk to the receiver. However, in analogous art, Bichot discloses a method for video content delivery, wherein “[c]hunks are of equal duration with respect to the audio and/or video content. This chunk duration defines a minimum bulk transfer time unit between the originating server OSERV 150 and the cache server CSERV 130, and more importantly between the cache server CSERV 130 and the at least one client devices CL 140. The originating server OSERV 150 is configured to generate chunks with a chunk duration function of the minimum RTT the audio and/or video content delivery system 100 is expected to deal with. For instance it could be 50 milliseconds (para. [0040]),” and “[b]ecause, according to RTT value, the bulk duration may be different across sessions or can be dynamically updated, and since the information representative of the appropriate timing for requesting a segment (e.g., availabilityTimeOffset according to MPEG DASH) is static in the manifest file, it may occur that the client device CL 140 requests a segment for which enough chunk data are not yet available to form an appropriate bulk and start sending the response (para. [0072]),” which teaches both that a plurality of chunks can be generated, as well as that manifest files and contain timing information for requesting a segment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin to allow for the manifest file to include information indicating a timing sequence of the plurality of segments, and for generating a second chunk of the new segment, and transmitting the second chunk to the receiver. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for well-known techniques to be used to deliver the content properly.
Claims 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0238390) in view of Bichot et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0143627) and Shvodian et al. (Pub. No.: US 2007/0100473).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Martin and Bichot discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 21, but it could be argued that Martin does not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise computing a release time for a segment of the plurality of segments. However, in analogous art, Shvodian discloses a system and method for synchronization of isochronous data streams over a wireless communication link, wherein “[t]he time stamp processor 260 uses the offset correction value in conjunction with a maximum expected latency value and the time stamp information from the oldest host interface packet in the FIFO buffer 220, to determine when the oldest host interface packet should be released to the receiver host interface circuit 210. The time stamp processor uses either a knowledge of the period of the periodic signal or a knowledge of the receive times of prior periodic signals to determine the appropriate releaser time (para. [0059]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin and Bichot to allow for computing a release time for a segment of the plurality of segments. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for network conditions and other available information to be used to improve synchronization of data streams and thus potentially increase user satisfaction with the systems.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Martin and Bichot the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 21, but it could be argued that Martin does not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise computing a new release time for each new segment of the plurality of segments. However, in analogous art, Shvodian discloses a system and method for synchronization of isochronous data streams over a wireless communication link, wherein “[t]he time stamp processor 260 uses the offset correction value in conjunction with a maximum expected latency value and the time stamp information from the oldest host interface packet in the FIFO buffer 220, to determine when the oldest host interface packet should be released to the receiver host interface circuit 210. The time stamp processor uses either a knowledge of the period of the periodic signal or a knowledge of the receive times of prior periodic signals to determine the appropriate releaser time (para. [0059]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin and Bichot to allow for computing a new release time for each new segment of the plurality of segments. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for network conditions and other available information to be used to improve synchronization of data streams and thus potentially increase user satisfaction with the systems.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0238390) in view of Bichot et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0143627), Shvodian et al. (Pub. No.: US 2007/0100473) and Kipp et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0090005).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Martin, Bichot and Shvodian discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 25, but it could be argued that the combination of Martin and Shvodian does not explicitly disclose wherein the release time is used to determine whether to discard data. However, in analogous art, Kipp discloses that “[t]he cache may be configured to “pull” new frames from upstream storage and to delete older frames for as long as the cache has active playback requests from one or more user devices. For example, each time a new frame is requested or received at the buffer, the oldest frame stored in the buffer may be deleted. After a predetermined length of time where no frames have been requested from a particular buffer, the cache may be configured let the buffer expire and all stored frames be deleted (para. [0040]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin, Bichot and Shvodian to allow for the release time to be used to determine whether to discard data. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for appropriate steps to be taken to properly deal with information that is no longer useful.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0238390) in view of Bichot et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0143627) and Barton et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0233228).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Martin and Bichot discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 21, wherein generating the manifest file includes generating the manifest file containing information associated with a first one of the plurality of segments (para. [0021]), but it could be argued that Martin does not explicitly disclose the first segment information including a first segment duration and first segment timing information, the operations further comprising: upon receipt of a request for the first segment from the receiver, transmitting the first segment; appending information associated with a second one of the plurality of segments to the manifest file, thereby generating a new manifest file, the appended information including a second segment duration and second segment timing information; upon receipt of a request for the new manifest file, transmitting the new manifest file to the receiver; and upon receipt of a request for the second segment from the receiver, transmitting the second segment. However, in analogous art, Barton discloses that when a large object, such as a video file, is modified, “[t]he manifest file for that large object video file will then be modified to include these new object segments such that the manifest file associates the new object segments with the large object video file in the same manner as the object segments that were originally created from the large object video file upon initial upload of the large object video file to the file storage system 100. Thus, a large object video file may be stored in the system as object segments 1, 2, and 3, and a manifest file may associate the object segments 1, 2 and 3 with the large object video file. When a new portion of the large object video file is uploaded, that new portion may be segmented into object segments 4 and 5 and uploaded to the file storage system 100, and the manifest file may then be modified in order to associate object segments 4 and 5 (as well as object segments 1, 2, and 3) with the large object video file. In response to a user request to download the large object video file, the manifest file may then be used to retrieve and provide object segments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 to the user device 102 in order to provide the complete large object video file to the user (para. [0138]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin and Bichot to allow for the first segment information to include a first segment duration and first segment timing information, the operations further comprising: upon receipt of a request for the first segment from the receiver, transmitting the first segment; appending information associated with a second one of the plurality of segments to the manifest file, thereby generating a new manifest file, the appended information including a second segment duration and second segment timing information; upon receipt of a request for the new manifest file, transmitting the new manifest file to the receiver; and upon receipt of a request for the second segment from the receiver, transmitting the second segment. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the manifest file to properly represent the updated data.
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0238390) in view of Bichot et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0143627) and Paniconi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0063497).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Martin and Bichot discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 30, but it could be argued that Martin does not explicitly disclose wherein the request is based on one or more predetermined criteria. However, in analogous art, Paniconi discloses that “a determination is made by a receiving station, a transmitting station, or both to selectively request or re-transmit lost packets based on an assessment that considers the cost of the retransmission and the quality of decoding partial frames. In some embodiments, the assessment can be made by using a function of the distortion occasioned by decoding a frame having a missing packet and the delay of re-transmitting the missing packet (para. [0026]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin and Bichot to allow for the request to be based on one or more predetermined criteria, such as cost. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the system to take more information into consideration when making decisions, which could increase the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Martin and Bichot discloses non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 21, but it could be argued that Martin does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined criteria includes at least one of amount of data received, cost, speed, level of importance, network stability, or network reliability. However, in analogous art, Paniconi discloses that “a determination is made by a receiving station, a transmitting station, or both to selectively request or re-transmit lost packets based on an assessment that considers the cost of the retransmission and the quality of decoding partial frames. In some embodiments, the assessment can be made by using a function of the distortion occasioned by decoding a frame having a missing packet and the delay of re-transmitting the missing packet (para. [0026]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin and Bichot to allow for the predetermined criteria to include at least one of amount of data received, cost, speed, level of importance, network stability, or network reliability. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the system to take more information into consideration when making decisions, which could increase the efficiency of the system.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0238390) in view of Bichot et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0143627) and Mayhew et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0380944).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Martin and Bichot discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 34, but it could be argued that Martin does not explicitly disclose wherein if the buffer of packets drops below a predetermined threshold, the receiver retries the download for the segment. However, in analogous art, Mayhew discloses that “The client device may require only one portion (e.g., only a single segment) in its local buffer (e.g., by setting a buffer depth threshold to one segment). When the count value is greater than a number of bytes or chunks in a portion (e.g., in a segment), the client device may increase the number of portions (e.g., segments) required in a playback buffer of the player device. For example, the client device may increase the number of portions (e.g., segments) required in the playback buffer to three portions. New portions may be requested immediately until the playback buffer is filled (e.g., when the buffer depth threshold is met). Having a variable buffer depth threshold improves playback experience by preventing the client device from aggressively requesting portions at times when the transcoder has not yet transcoded a sufficient amount of data for each requested portion, which could result in playback stall (e.g., reaching the end of a portion before a subsequent portion has been received) and associated low assessment of the network's bandwidth. By using a variable buffer depth threshold that depends on whether pre-transcoded portions are available, the system can request higher transcoding bitrates, because of a higher measured bandwidth of the network (para. [0006]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin and Bichot to allow for the receiver to retry the download for the segment if the buffer of packets drops below a predetermined threshold. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would help to prevent buffer starvation.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0238390) in view of Bichot et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0143627) and Hosur (Pub. No.: US 2017/0041372).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Martin and Bichot discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 21, but it could be argued that Martin does not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise appending a format header to at least some of the segments in the plurality of segments. However, in analogous art, Hosur discloses that “[a] first portion 142 of the media content file 140 may include media data 144. The media data 144 may include media data of the first media content item (e.g., the at least one media content stream). A second portion 146 of the media content file 140 may include header data 148 and an indicator 150 of a location of a second media content item 162. The header data 148 may include data associated with the second media content item 162, such as data indicating a duration, a bit rate, a CODEC used to encode the second media content item 162, other information, or a combination thereof. The header data 148 may enable the client device 120 to process the second media content item 162 when the second media content item 162 is received so that playback of the media data 144 and the second media content item 162 appears to a user as playback of a single media content stream. Including the header data 148 and the indicator 150 in the second portion 146 of the media content file 140 may be referred to as “grooming” the media content file 140 (para. [0025]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin and Bichot to allow for appending a format header to at least some of the segments in the plurality of segments. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for a well-known process for identifying content to be implemented.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0238390) in view of Bichot et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0143627) and De Foy et al. (Pub. No.: 2014/0245359).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Martin and Bichot discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 37, but it could be argued that Martin does not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise selecting the content delivery network from a plurality of content delivery networks based on a predetermined criteria. However, in analogous art, De Foy discloses that “a stream may start over a (single) LTE access network, and then the device may be attached over a WiFi access network. Streams over these two access networks may be aggregated from this point on. Later on, the scheduler module may determine to stream entirely over WiFi and keep the LTE streamer module unused but ready in case the WiFi link is lost. At circle-32014, the state of the client may be set back to a normal aggregation state, after connectivity may be restored on the first access network. Although embodiments contemplate that many different scheduling may be used, two exemplary families of aggregation algorithms are described here. "Throughput" may focus on maximizing throughput, and "Cost" may focus on using the lower cost access network and use others when useful, or perhaps in some embodiments needed, to maintain the service (Figs. 11, 14 and 21, paras. [0259]-[0262]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin and Bichot to allow for the operations to further comprise selecting the content delivery network from a plurality of content delivery networks based on a predetermined criteria. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for service to be maintained while allowing for desired metrics to be met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in view of Bichot.
Conclusion
Claims 21-40 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 Joshua D Taylor whose telephone number is (571)270-3755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 6 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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/Joshua D Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights