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 Arguments
On page 6 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant argues that the Double Patenting rejections of the claims be held in abeyance until the claims of the application are found allowable.
In response, the Examiner notes that the Applicant has not presented any arguments how the claims in the instant application are patentably distinct from the claims in cited patents and a terminal disclaimer has not been submitted to overcome the double patenting rejection. Although the claims include slight differences, the claimed features are not patentably distinguishable. Therefore, the double patenting rejection of the claims is maintained (see updated double patenting rejection below).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,192,546. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application Claim 1
US Pat. 12,192,546 Claim 1
A method comprising: accessing a content item having a plurality of segments and having a corresponding bandwidth value for each of the plurality of segments; sending, to a device and based on a first request, a first segment of a plurality of segments of a content item;
A method comprising: generating, by at least one computing device, a first manifest file indicating, for each of a plurality of segments of a video content item, a corresponding bandwidth value;
…sending, to the device and based on the first request, the first segment;
receiving a video quality parameter associated with the first segment; generating a manifest file based on the video quality parameter and the corresponding bandwidth value for at least a second segment of the content item;
receiving a measurement, taken by the device and taken using a video quality measurement algorithm, of a received video quality of display of the first segment; generating a second manifest file by updating, based on the received measurement, the first manifest file to update a bandwidth value corresponding to a file corresponding to a second segment of the plurality of segments;
receiving, from the device and after sending the manifest file to the device, a second request, based on the manifest file, for a second segment of the plurality of segments; and
receiving, from the device and after sending the second manifest file to the device, a second request, based on the second manifest file, for the second segment of the plurality of segments and a third segment of the plurality of segments; and
sending, to the device and based on the second request, the second segment.
sending, to the device and based on the second request, the second segment and the third segment.
Since claim 1 in the instant application is a broader recitation of claim 1 in Pat. 12,192,546 it would have been obvious to modify claim 1 in Pat. 12,192,546 to get claim 1 in the instant application.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 2.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 3.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 4.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 5.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 6.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 7.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 8.
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 9.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 10.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 11.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 12.
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 13.
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 14.
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 15.
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 16.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 17.
Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 18.
Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 16.
Claim 20 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 2.
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 1-2, 10-11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmar et al. (US Pub. 2014/0149557) in view of Rosenzweig et al. (US Pub. 2015/0256583), herein referenced as Lohmar and Rosenzweig, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Lohmar discloses “A method comprising: sending, to a device and based on a first request, a first segment of a plurality of segments of a content item ([0006], [0059], Figs. 1, 5, i.e., after receiving the manifest file by the client device, the client start downloading the content segments based on the media bit rate candidates indicated in the manifest file. In particular, the client selects one media bit rate of the given media data rate candidates and chooses a bit rate for downloading the first segment);
receiving a video quality parameter associated with the first segment ([0006], [0011], [0021], [0057]-[0060], i.e., receiving component 206 adapted to receive feedback information related to the available bit rate over the link from the server 200 to the one or more clients being in connection with the server. Different metric may be used as a measure for the perceived quality of the content contained in the one or more content streams, wherein the perceived media quality depends on bitrate);
generating a manifest file based on the video quality parameter ([0060], [0065], Figs. 5-6, i.e., after receiving feedback information indicating that the available bit rate has changed, the manipulating component 204 manipulates the manifest file. In detail, the manipulating component 204 manipulates the manifest file by adjusting the media bit rate candidates based on the changed available bit rate between the server and the clients and transmits the manipulated manifest file to the client);
receiving, from the device and after sending the manifest file to the device, a second request, based on the manifest file, for the second segment of the plurality of segments; and sending, to the device and based on the second request, the second segment.” ([0006]-[0008], [0060], Fig. 1, i.e., client selects a media bit rate from the media bit rate candidates in the manipulated manifest file and downloads the second segment with a bit rate which is slight larger than the selected media bit rate).
Lohmar fails to explicitly disclose accessing a content item having a plurality of segments and having a corresponding bandwidth value for each of the plurality of segments; generating a manifest files based on the corresponding bandwidth value for at least a second segment of the content item.
Rosenzweig teaches the technique of accessing a content item having a plurality of segments and having a corresponding bandwidth value for each of the plurality of segments; generating a manifest files based on the corresponding bandwidth value for at least a second segment of the content item ([0023], [0045], Figs. 1, 3-4, i.e., bitstreams 104a-104n may comprise a number of content segments 110a-110n (e.g., the content segments 110). Each of the content segments 110a-110n may represent a portion of the bitstream 104a-104n. Additionally, manifest file 152 includes metadata 204a-204n, wherein the metadata 204a-204n may indicate a bandwidth needed to playback the content segments 110).
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 accessing a content item having a plurality of segments and having a corresponding bandwidth value for each of the plurality of segments; generating a manifest files based on the corresponding bandwidth value for at least a second segment of the content item as taught by Rosenzweig, to improve the adaptive streaming system of Lohmar for the predictable result of providing technical requirement information to ensure smooth playback of corresponding content segments.
Regarding claim 2, Lohmar discloses “wherein the plurality of segments comprises a plurality of differently-transcoded segments of a same first portion of the content item.” ([0053], i.e., a manifest file is a structure comprising a plurality of values (which are called media bit rate candidates in the following) indicating a media bit rate at which content segments of the media content streams can be encoded in the encoding component 208).
Regarding claim 10, Lohmar discloses “A method comprising: sending, to a device, a first transcoded representation of a plurality of transcoded representations of a content item… ([0006], [0059], Figs. 1, 5, i.e., after receiving the manifest file by the client, the client starts downloading the content segments based on the media bit rate candidates indicated in the manifest file. In particular, the client selects one media bit rate of the given media data rate candidates and chooses a bit rate for downloading the first segment);
receiving a video quality parameter associated with the first transcoded representation ([0006], [0011], [0021], [0057]-[0060], i.e., receiving component 206 adapted to receive feedback information related to the available bit rate over the link from the server 200 to the one or more clients being in connection with the server. Different metric may be used as a measure for the perceived quality of the content contained in the one or more content streams, wherein the perceived media quality depends on bitrate);
generating, based on the video quality parameter…a data set indicating a second transcoded representation of the plurality of transcoded representations ([0060], [0065], Figs. 5-6, i.e., after receiving feedback information indicating that the available bit rate has changed, the manipulating component 204 manipulates the manifest file. In detail, the manipulating component 204 manipulates the manifest file by adjusting the media bit rate candidates based on the changed available bit rate between the server and the clients and transmits the manipulated manifest file to the client);
receiving, from the device and after sending at least a portion of the data set to the device, a request indicating the second transcoded representation of the plurality of transcoded representations; and sending, based on the request, the second transcoded representation.” ([0006]-[0008], [0060], Fig. 1, i.e., client selects a media bit rate from the media bit rate candidates in the manipulated manifest file and downloads the second segment with a bit rate which is slight larger than the selected media bit rate).
Lohmar fails to explicitly disclose the plurality of transcoded representations having a corresponding bandwidth value; generating, based on the corresponding bandwidth value, a data set.
Rosenzweig teaches the technique of providing the plurality of transcoded representations having a corresponding bandwidth value; generating, based on the corresponding bandwidth value, a data set ([0023], [0045], Figs. 1, 3-4, i.e., bitstreams 104a-104n may comprise a number of content segments 110a-110n (e.g., the content segments 110). Each of the content segments 110a-110n may represent a portion of the bitstream 104a-104n. Additionally, manifest file 152 includes metadata 204a-204n, wherein the metadata 204a-204n may indicate a bandwidth needed to playback the content segments 110).
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 providing the plurality of transcoded representations having a corresponding bandwidth value; generating, based on the corresponding bandwidth value, a data set as taught by Rosenzweig, to improve the adaptive streaming system of Lohmar for the predictable result of providing technical requirement information to ensure smooth playback of corresponding content segments. Regarding claim 11, Lohmar discloses “wherein the data set comprises a manifest file.” ([0059]-[0060], [0065], Figs. 1, 5-6, i.e., the manifest file comprises media bit rate candidates for the content segments; an updated manifest file by adjusting the media bit rate candidates based on the changed available bit rate between the server and the client).
Regarding claim 13, Lohmar discloses “wherein each of the plurality of transcoded representations comprises a segment of the content item.” ([0018], i.e., a manifest file comprising one or more media bit rate candidates each of which indicating an encoded media data rate of the content segments of the one or more content streams).
Regarding claim 14, Lohmar discloses “wherein the first transcoded representation is associated with a first segment of the content item, and wherein the second transcoded representation is associated with a second segment, of the content item, that is subsequent to the first segment.” ([0059]-[0060], i.e., the client selects one media bit rate of the given media data rate candidates. After receiving feedback indicating the available bit rate, the manifest is manipulated by adjusting the media bit rate candidates based on the feedback. Then the second segment is downloaded by the client. Additionally, as the manifest is manipulated, the second segment is associated with a different representation).
Claims 3, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmar in view of Rosenzweig and in further view of Ma et al. (US Pub. 2013/0097309), herein referenced as Ma.
Regarding claim 3, Lohmar discloses generating a manifest file based on the video quality parameter ([0060], [0065], Figs. 5-6), however the combination fails to disclose “wherein the video quality parameter corresponds to less bandwidth utilization as compared to a bandwidth value.”
Ma teaches the technique of providing wherein the video quality parameter corresponds to less bandwidth utilization as compared to a bandwidth value ([0031], [0034]-[0036], i.e., the proxy cache 106 prefetches the next segment for a lower bitrate if network congestion is detected. In one embodiment, the segment bitrate is determined from the URL by matching it to information in the playlist or manifest file). 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 providing wherein the video quality parameter corresponds to less bandwidth utilization as compared to a bandwidth value as taught by Ma, to improve the adaptive streaming system of Lohmar for the predictable result of maintaining quality of service based on changing network conditions.
Regarding claim 6, Lohmar discloses generating a manifest file based on the video quality parameter ([0060], [0065], Figs. 5-6), however the combination fails to disclose “wherein the video quality parameter corresponds to more bandwidth utilization as compared to a bandwidth value.”
Ma teaches the technique of providing wherein the video quality parameter corresponds to more bandwidth utilization as compared to a bandwidth value ([0031], [0034]-[0036], i.e., the proxy cache 106 prefetches the next segment for a higher bitrate if excess bandwidth exists and the client 102 SLA allows for it). 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 providing wherein the video quality parameter corresponds to more bandwidth utilization as compared to a bandwidth value as taught by Ma, to improve the adaptive streaming system of Lohmar for the predictable result of maintaining quality of service based on changing network conditions.
Claims 4, 7-9, 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmar in view of Rosenzweig and in further view of Luby et al. (US Pub. 2013/0007223), herein referenced as Luby.
Regarding claim 4, the combination fails to explicitly disclose “publishing the manifest file.”
Luby teaches the technique of publishing the manifest file ([0291], i.e., the server will describe segments that are already accessible or get accessibly shortly after this instance of the MPD has been published. As the client anticipates that it reaches the end of the described media segments in the MPD, it requests a new instance of the MPD to continue continuous playout in the expectation that the server has published a new MPD describing new segments). 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 publishing the manifest file as taught by Luby, to improve the adaptive streaming system of Lohmar for the predictable result of making the manifest available for all client devices that have similar characteristics and network conditions.
Regarding claim 7, the combination fails to disclose “wherein the sending the second segment comprises sending the second segment as part of a fragment.”
Luby teaches the technique of providing wherein the sending the second segment comprises sending the second segment as part of a fragment ([0512], i.e., a segment is a 3GPP movie fragment). 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 providing wherein the sending the second segment comprises sending the second segment as part of a fragment as taught by Luby, to improve the adaptive streaming system of Lohmar for the predictable result of improving efficiency by segment indexing a mapping of corresponding fragments within the segment, wherein a receiver can use the byte offset to request data from the fragments without having to download all of the data associated with the other fragments that are not associated with the time offsets ([0126]-[0127]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination fails to disclose “wherein the generating the manifest file further comprises determining, based on the video quality parameter, a fragment length associated with the first segment.”
Luby teaches the technique of determining, based on the video quality parameter, a fragment length associated with the first segment ([0294], i.e., the duration of media segments is advantageously flexible to adjust to suitable segment sizes that can be optimized to delivery or caching properties, to compensate for end-to-end delay in live services or other aspects that deal with storage or delivery of segments, or for other reasons). 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, based on the video quality parameter, a fragment length associated with the first segment as taught by Luby, to improve the adaptive streaming system of Lohmar for the predictable result of improving optimization by adapting the presentation of streamed media based on the measured network and buffer conditions ([0016]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination fails to disclose “determining, based on the video quality parameter, a length of a fragment that comprises the second segment, wherein the sending the second segment comprises sending the fragment.”
Luby teaches the technique of determining, based on the video quality parameter, a length of a fragment that comprises the second segment, wherein the sending the second segment comprises sending the fragment ([0294], i.e., the duration of media segments is advantageously flexible to adjust to suitable segment sizes that can be optimized to delivery or caching properties, to compensate for end-to- end delay in live services or other aspects that deal with storage or delivery of segments, or for other reasons). 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, based on the video quality parameter, a length of a fragment that comprises the second segment, wherein the sending the second segment comprises sending the fragment as taught by Luby, to improve the adaptive streaming system of Lohmar for the predictable result of improving optimization by adapting the presentation of streamed media based on the measured network and buffer conditions ([0016]).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmar in view of Rosenzweig and in further view of Dunne et al (US Pub. 2015/0135246), herein referenced as Dunne.
Regarding claim 5, the combination fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the video quality parameter comprises one or more of: a structural similarity index measurement; or a peak signal-to-noise ratio measurement.”
Dunne teaches the technique of providing wherein the video quality parameter comprises one or more of: a structural similarity index measurement; or a peak signal-to-noise ratio measurement ([0039]-[0040], i.e., a structural similarity index measurement such as frame-by-frame, pixel-by-pixel comparison of the first instance of reference video 152-1 to the second instance 152-2, other frame information also can be compared and corresponding metrics can be generated). 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 providing wherein the video quality parameter comprises one or more of: a structural similarity index measurement; or a peak signal-to-noise ratio measurement as taught by Dunne, to improve the adaptive streaming system of Lohmar for the predictable result of providing an accurate comparison to gauge quality thus improving the viewing experience.
Claims 16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmar in view of Thomas et al. (US Pub. 2019/0342356),Yu et al. (US Pub. 2015/0319214), herein referenced as Thomas and Yu, respectively and in further view of Rosenzweig.
Regarding claim 16, Lohmar discloses “A method comprising: sending, by at least one computing device, a video quality parameter associated with a first segment of a plurality of segments of a content item ([0006], [0011], [0021], [0057]-[0060], i.e., receiving component 206 adapted to receive feedback information related to the available bit rate over the link from the server 200 to the one or more clients being in connection with the server. Different metric may be used as a measure for the perceived quality of the content contained in the one or more content streams, wherein the perceived media quality depends on bitrate);
receiving a manifest file, wherein the manifest file was modified based on the video quality parameter and indicates a second segment of the plurality of segments of the content item…” ([0060], [0065], Figs. 5-6, i.e., after receiving feedback information indicating that the available bit rate has changed, the manipulating component 204 manipulates the manifest file. In detail, the manipulating component 204 manipulates the manifest file by adjusting the media bit rate candidates based on the changed available bit rate between the server and the clients and transmits the manipulated manifest file to the client).
Lohamr discloses generating a manifest, sending a segment, receiving feedback, manipulating the manifest, sending a subsequent segment ([0060], Fig. 5), however fails to determining, based on the first bandwidth value, a request for the second segment of the plurality of segments that identifies the second segment of the plurality of segments; and receiving, based on the request, the second segment.
Thomas teaches the technique of determining, based on the first bandwidth value, a request for the second segment of the plurality of segments that identifies the second segment of the plurality of segments; and receiving, based on the request, the second segment ([0142], i.e., providing that the client apparatus may be configured to measure quality of services (QoS) metrics and use these metrics for selecting one or more MPD attributes so that the bandwidth requirements for the content signaled in the MPD is within the bandwidth range that is available to the client apparatus). 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, based on the first bandwidth value, a request for the second segment of the plurality of segments that identifies the second segment of the plurality of segments; and receiving, based on the request, the second segment as taught by Thomas, to improve the adaptive streaming system of Lohmar for the predictable result of providing content suitable for the bandwidth range of the client for a more enjoyable viewing experience.
The combination fails to disclose determining, based on the manifest file and based on a bandwidth needed for pre-fetching the second segment of the plurality of segments, a first bandwidth value.
Yu teaches the technique of determining, based on the manifest file and based on a bandwidth needed for pre-fetching the second segment of the plurality of segments, a first bandwidth value ([0037], [0055], Fig. 4, i.e., the content controller 105 uses knowledge collected from the previous rounds, such as the history of DASH video segment requests, along with the bandwidth usage, in order to determine segments to be prefetched by caches in a next round. In block 405 the content controller determines an available network bandwidth for prefetching media segments of the plurality of media segments at a storage of a node of the network).
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, based on the manifest file and based on a bandwidth needed for pre-fetching the second segment of the plurality of segments, a first bandwidth value as taught by Yu, to improve the adaptive streaming system of Lohmar for the predictable result of optimizing the network usage by using predictable peaks in traffic and known durations of data streaming to permit acceleration of data stream transmission by prefetching the data stream prior to peak traffic ([0014]).
The combination still fails to explicitly disclose the plurality of segments having a corresponding bandwidth value, the second segment having a different bandwidth value from the corresponding bandwidth value.
Rosenzweig teaches the technique of providing the plurality of segments having a corresponding bandwidth value, the second segment having a different bandwidth value from the corresponding bandwidth value ([0023], [0025], [0045], Figs. 1, 3-4, i.e., bitstreams 104a-104n may comprise a number of content segments 110a-110n (e.g., the content segments 110). Each of the content segments 110a-110n may represent a portion of the bitstream 104a-104n. Additionally, manifest file 152 includes metadata 204a-204n, wherein the metadata 204a-204n may indicate a bandwidth needed to playback the content segments 110, wherein client devices request segments in an adaptive video bitrate streaming system). 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 providing the plurality of segments having a corresponding bandwidth value, the second segment having a different bandwidth value from the corresponding bandwidth value as taught by Rosenzweig, to improve the adaptive streaming system of Lohmar for the predictable result of providing technical requirement information to ensure smooth playback of corresponding content segments.
Regarding claim 19, the combination fails to disclose “wherein the manifest file indicates a second bandwidth value corresponding to the second segment, and wherein the determining the first bandwidth value is based on the second bandwidth value.”
Thomas teaches the technique of providing wherein the manifest file indicates a second bandwidth value corresponding to the second segment ([0142], i.e., providing that the client apparatus may be configured to measure quality of services (QoS) metrics and use these metrics for selecting one or more MPD attributes so that the bandwidth requirements for the content signaled in the MPD is within the bandwidth range that is available to the client apparatus). 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 providing wherein the manifest file indicates a second bandwidth value corresponding to the second segment as taught by Thomas, to improve the adaptive streaming system of Lohmar for the predictable result of providing content suitable for the bandwidth range of the client for a more enjoyable viewing experience.
The combination still fails to disclose wherein the determining the first bandwidth value is based on the second bandwidth value.
Yu teaches the technique of providing wherein the determining the first bandwidth value is based on the second bandwidth value ([0037], [0055], Fig. 4, i.e., the content controller 105 uses knowledge collected from the previous rounds, such as the history of DASH video segment requests, along with the bandwidth usage, in order to determine segments to be prefetched by caches in a next round. In block 405 the content controller determines an available network bandwidth for prefetching media segments of the plurality of media segments at a storage of a node of the network). 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 providing wherein the determining the first bandwidth value is based on the second bandwidth value as taught by Yu, to improve the adaptive streaming system of Lohmar for the predictable result of optimizing the network usage by using predictable peaks in traffic and known durations of data streaming to permit acceleration of data stream transmission by prefetching the data stream prior to peak traffic ([0014]).
Regarding claim 20, Lohmar discloses “wherein the plurality of segments comprises a plurality of differently-transcoded segments of a same first portion of the content item.” ([0053], i.e., a manifest file is a structure comprising a plurality of values (which are called media bit rate candidates in the following) indicating a media bit rate at which content segments of the media content streams can be encoded in the encoding component 208).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohmar in view of Thomas, Yu, Rosenzweig, and in further view of Luby.
Regarding claim 17, the combination fails to disclose “wherein the manifest file comprises an indication of a fragment length corresponding to the second segment.”
Luby teaches the technique of providing wherein the manifest file comprises an indication of a fragment length corresponding to the second segment ([0294], i.e., the duration of media segments is advantageously flexible to adjust to suitable segment sizes that can be optimized to delivery or caching properties, to compensate for end-to-end delay in live services or other aspects that deal with storage or delivery of segments, or for other reasons). 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 providing wherein the manifest file comprises an indication of a fragment length corresponding to the second segment as taught by Luby, to improve the adaptive streaming system of Lohmar for the predictable result of improving optimization by adapting the presentation of streamed media based on the measured network and buffer conditions ([0016]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination fails to disclose “wherein the receiving the second segment comprises receiving a fragment, comprising the second segment, having a length that was determined based on the video quality parameter.”
Luby teaches the technique of providing wherein the receiving the second segment comprises receiving a fragment, comprising the second segment, having a length that was determined based on the video quality parameter ([0294], i.e., the duration of media segments is advantageously flexible to adjust to suitable segment sizes that can be optimized to delivery or caching properties, to compensate for end-to-end delay in live services or other aspects that deal with storage or delivery of segments, or for other reasons).
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 providing wherein the receiving the second segment comprises receiving a fragment, comprising the second segment, having a length that was determined based on the video quality parameter as taught by Luby, to improve the adaptive streaming system of Lohmar for the predictable result of improving optimization by adapting the presentation of streamed media based on the measured network and buffer conditions ([0016]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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 July 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights