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 Objections
Claims 9 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the method of 1”. It appears this should recite “the method of claim 1”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the system of 12”. It appears this should recite “the system of claim 12”.
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.
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 16, 18, and 19 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.
Claims 16, 18, and 19 introduce “the control circuitry”. It is unclear if this is the same as “processing circuitry” introduced in claim 12.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 3-7 and 9-10 recite that they are dependent upon cancelled claim 1. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the claims as being dependent on independent claim 2.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12143684. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘684 anticipate claims 2-21.
Claim 2 (and similarly claim 12) is anticipated by claim 1 (and similarly claim 11) of ‘684.
The dependent claims are anticipated by the dependent claims of ‘684.
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 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 12, 14, 15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watson et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0108671), hereinafter Watson.
Regarding claim 2, (and similarly claim 12) Watson teaches
A method comprising: (Fig. 1, 130; Fig. 5; i.e. A method performed by a client device comprising multimedia content storage (Fig. 5, 530; [0054]) and processing circuitry (Fig. 5, 505; [0054]; i.e. firmware/processor) to perform the method.)
receiving, from a media server, (Fig. 1, 105; i.e. streaming media host server) a manifest (Fig. 6; [0057]; i.e. preferences list) for accessing a plurality of segments ([0052]; i.e. chunks) of a content item, (i.e. media content) wherein the manifest comprises: ([0049])
data (Fig. 6, 610; i.e. URL link to an encoding of the media content at a highest ranked CDN/CDN1) indicative of a first network location (Fig 1; i.e. highest ranked CDN) of a first segment ([0052]; [0057]; i.e. The client device may retrieve the media content in chunks/segments all located at the CDN-URL of the highest ranked CDN. A first segment/chunk is a first chunk of the media content requested by the client device.) of the plurality of segments of the content item; ([0032]; Fig. 6; [0057]; [0061])
data (Fig. 6, 610; i.e. URL link to an encoding of the media content at a highest ranked CDN/CDN1) indicative of a second network location (i.e. highest ranked CDN) of a second segment ([0052]; i.e. A chunk that is requested after monitoring the performance of each active CDN in delivering sequential chunks of the media content including the first chunk.) of the plurality of segments of the content item; ([0052]; Fig. 6; [0057])
data (Fig. 6, 625; i.e. URL link to an encoding of the media content at a second ranked CDN/CDN2) indicative of a third network location (i.e. second ranked CDN) of the second segment of the plurality of segments of the content item; and ([0052]; Fig. 6; [0057])
contextual information (Fig. 6, R1; i.e. ranking) for the first segment of the content item that comprises a first expected performance data (i.e. best performing CDN) for accessing the first segment from the first network location; (Fig. 6; [0046]; i.e. The highest ranked CDN has been determined to be the preferred CDN for performing well. Therefore, it is expected to be the best performing CDN for the client device.)
accessing the first segment of the content item from the first network location; ([0052]; [0061]; i.e. The client device accesses a first chunk from the highest ranked CDN.)
determining a first performance data (i.e. monitored performance of the highest ranked CDN) based on accessing the first segment of the content item from the first network location; and ([0052])
based at least in part on a comparison of the determined first performance data and the first expected performance data listed in the manifest, selecting one of the second network location or the third network location; and ([0052]; i.e. Based on whether the monitored performance of the highest ranked CDN is better or worse than a second ranked CDN, a future segment is selected from either the highest ranked CDN or a second ranked CDN. Therefore, a comparison is made between whether the actual ranking of the CDN1 matches the expected ranking of the CDN1 being the highest performer.)
accessing the second segment of the plurality of segments of the content item from the selected location. ([0052])
Regarding claim 4, (and similarly claim 14) Watson teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the first network location, (i.e. highest ranked CDN/CDN1) the second network location, (i.e. highest ranked CDN/CDN1) and the third network location ((i.e. second ranked CDN/CDN2) are associated with the same over-the-top (OTT) content platform. (Fig. 1; i.e. computing infrastructure 100 including CDN1 and CDN2) (Fig. 1; [0026])
Regarding claim 5, (and similarly claim 15) Watson teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the second network location (i.e. highest ranked CDN/first CDN) is associated with a first over-the-top (OTT) content platform (i.e. CDN1) and the third network location (i.e. second ranked CDN/second CDN) is associated with a second OTT content platform. (i.e. CDN2) (Fig. 1; [0026])
Regarding claim 7, (and similarly claim 17) Watson teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the data indicative (Fig. 6, 610; i.e. URL) of the second network location (i.e. CDN1) of the second segment is associated with a bitrate variant (Fig. 6, 605; i.e. stream rate) for the content item and the data indicative (Fig. 6, 625; i.e. URL) of the third network location (i.e. CDN2) of the second segment is associated with a bitrate variant for the content item. (Fig. 6; [0057])
Regarding claim 8, (and similarly claim 18) Watson teaches
The method of claim 7, further comprising determining performance data for the bitrate variant associated with the data indicative of the second network location (i.e. highest ranked CDN) and performance data for the bitrate variant associated with the data indicative of the third network location. (i.e. second ranked CDN) ([0058]; [0052]; i.e. The client device selects a bitrate variant and requests chunks from each CDN of that variant. Performance data for each CDN is monitored.)
Regarding claim 9, (and similarly claim 19) Watson teaches
The method of 1, wherein the manifest further comprises:
data indicative (Fig. 6, 610; i.e. URL of CDN1) of a fourth network location (i.e. highest ranked CDN/CDN1) of a third segment (i.e. future segment) of the plurality of segments of the content item; (Fig. 6; [0057])
data indicative of a fifth network location (Fig. 6, 625; i.e. URL of CDN2) of a fourth segment (i.e. future segment) of the plurality of segments of the content item; and
contextual information (Fig. 6, 615; i.e. R1) for the third segment of the content item that comprises a second expected performance data (i.e. best performing CDN) for accessing the third segment from the fourth network location; (Fig. 6; [0046]; i.e. The highest ranked CDN has been determined to be the preferred CDN for performing well. Therefore, it is expected to be the best performing CDN for the client device.)
the method further comprising:
accessing the third segment of the content item from the fourth network location; (i.e. highest ranked CDN/CDN1) ([0052]; i.e. If the highest ranked CDN is performing as expected the future segments would be accessed from the highest ranked CDN/CDN1.)
determining a second performance data (i.e. monitored performance of the highest ranked CDN) based on accessing the third segment of the content item from the fourth network location; and ([0052])
based at least in part on a comparison of the determined second performance data and the second expected performance data listed in the manifest: ([0052]; i.e. Based on whether the monitored performance of the highest ranked CDN is better or worse than a second ranked CDN, a future segment is selected from either the highest ranked CDN or a second ranked CDN. Therefore, a comparison is made between whether the actual ranking of the CDN1 matches the expected ranking of the CDN1 being the highest performer.)
accessing the fourth segment of the plurality of segments of the content item from the fifth network location. ([0052]; i.e. When the highest original primary CDN is worse that the second ranked CDN, the future segments will be accessed from second ranked CDN.)
Regarding claim 10, (and similarly claim 20) Watson teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the manifest further comprises:
contextual information (Fig. 6, R1; i.e. ranking of highest ranking CDN/CDN1) for the second segment of the content item that comprises a second expected performance data (i.e. performance ranking) for accessing the second segment from the second network location; (i.e. URL of CDN1) (Fig. 6; [0057])
contextual information (Fig. 6, R2; i.e. ranking for the second ranking CDN/CDN2) for the second segment of the content item that comprises a third expected performance data (i.e. performance ranking) for accessing the second segment from the third network location; (i.e. URL of CDN2) and (Fig. 6; [0057])
wherein the contextual information for the first segment and the contextual information for the second segment further comprises an indication of priority (i.e. ranking) for accessing the first segment from the first network location, an indication of priority for accessing the second segment from the second network location, and an indication of priority for accessing the second segment from the third network location. ([0046])
Regarding claim 11, (and similarly claim 21) Watson teaches
The method of claim 10, wherein the indication of priority for accessing the first segment from the first network location, the indication of priority for accessing the second segment from the second network location, and the indication of priority for accessing the second segment from the third network location is based on a user profile. (i.e. user of a same geographic area) ([0046])
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, 6, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of Shribman et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0337426), hereinafter Shribman.
Regarding claim 3, (and similarly claim 13) Watson shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, Watson fails to show
The method of claim 1, wherein the selecting the one of the second network location or the third network location is based on determining that the determined first performance data exceeds the first expected performance data for accessing the first segment from the first network location.
Shribman shows
wherein the selecting the one of the second network location (i.e. first selected source CDN for a part of the content) or the third network location (i.e. alternate selected source CDN) is based on determining that the determined first performance data (i.e. monitored actual response time) exceeds the first expected performance data (Fig. 11a, 112d; i.e. RTT of source list indicating a pre-set time interval threshold) for accessing the first segment from the first network location. ([0416-0417]; [0437]; [0426]; i.e. If the actual response time for accessing the first part of the content is above the pre-set time interval threshold then the alternate/third network location will be selected to replace the first selected source CDN.)
Shribman and Watson are considered analogous art because they involve selection of a CDN for a content item. Watson shows that the manifest may include priority of CDNs. Shribman shows that such manifest may also include an expected RTT time for the CDN. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watson to incorporate the teachings of Shribman wherein the selecting the one of the second network location or the third network location is based on determining that the determined first performance data exceeds the first expected performance data for accessing the first segment from the first network location. Doing so provides for a more accurate comparison of the various CDNs.
Regarding claim 6, (and similarly claim 16) Watson shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, Watson fails to show
The method of claim 1, wherein the manifest further comprises contextual information for the second segment of the content item that comprises a second expected performance data for accessing the second segment from the second network location, wherein the method further comprises:
accessing the second segment of the plurality of segments of the content item from the second network location;
determining a second performance data based on accessing the second segment of the content item from the second network location; and
based at least on a comparison of the determined second performance data from accessing the second segment of the content item from the second network location and the second expected performance data for accessing the second segment from the second network location listed in the manifest: accessing the second segment of the plurality of segments of the content item from the third network location.
Shribman shows
wherein the manifest (Fig. 11A) further comprises contextual information (i.e. RTT) for the second segment ([0416]; i.e. part after first part of the content item) of the content item that comprises a second expected performance data (i.e. first selected CDN) for accessing the second segment from the second network location, (i.e. first selected CDN) wherein the method further comprises: (Fig. 11A; [0401]; [0416-0417])
accessing the second segment of the plurality of segments of the content item from the second network location; ([0426]; [0437]; i.e. When the first selected CDN continues to be the best performing CDN, a next part will be accessed from the first selected CDN)
determining a second performance data (i.e. actual response time) based on accessing the second segment of the content item from the second network location; and ([0437])
based at least on a comparison of the determined second performance data from accessing the second segment of the content item from the second network location and the second expected performance data for accessing the second segment from the second network location listed in the manifest: accessing the second segment of the plurality of segments of the content item from the third network location. (i.e. alternate CDN) ([0437]; i.e. If the response time is above the pre-set time interval threshold then the alternative source is selected to deliver the undelivered segment.)
Shribman and Watson are considered analogous art because they involve selection of a CDN for a content item. Watson shows that the manifest may include priority of CDNs. Shribman shows that such manifest may also include an expected RTT time for the CDN. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watson to incorporate the teachings of Shribman wherein the manifest further comprises contextual information for the second segment of the content item that comprises a second expected performance data for accessing the second segment from the second network location, wherein the method further comprises: accessing the second segment of the plurality of segments of the content item from the second network location, determining a second performance data based on accessing the second segment of the content item from the second network location, and based at least on a comparison of the determined second performance data from accessing the second segment of the content item from the second network location and the second expected performance data for accessing the second segment from the second network location listed in the manifest: accessing the second segment of the plurality of segments of the content item from the third network location. Doing so provides for a more accurate comparison of the various CDNs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0187768) shows a streaming optimization server that determines scores for multiple CDNs. The scores are provided to a user device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE H JAHNIGE whose telephone number is (571)272-8450. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Christopher Parry can be reached at (571) 272-8328. 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.
/CAROLINE H JAHNIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451