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 .
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 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 Office Action is in response to an AMENDMENT entered 5/12/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of conflicting Patent No. 12,212,817 B2 in view of US Pub. No. 20180048921 A to Sood and in further view of US Pub. No. 20070209047 A1 to Hallberg. Look below for example.
Table 1 illustrates the conflicting claim pairs:
Conflicting Patent No. 12,212,817 B2
1
1
1
Pending Application 18/968605
1
8
15
Table 2 illustrates a mapping between the limitations claim 1 of the pending application and claim 1 of the conflicting Patent No. 12,212,817 B2. Claim 8 and 15 of pending application and claim 1 in the conflicting Patent No. 12,212,817 B2, respectively, are analyzed similarly. Additionally, the dependent claims are analyzed similarly.
Conflicting Patent No. 12,212,817 B2
Claim 1 of Conflicting Application
Serial Number (18/968605)
Claim 1 of Pending Application
1. A method comprising:
receiving, based on a plurality of requests for a content item from a plurality of user devices, telemetry data, wherein the telemetry data comprise a plurality of indications of events and associated timing information;
determining, based on the plurality of indications of events, one or more events satisfying a first threshold indicative of a quality of the one or more events;
determining, based on a quantity of the one or more events satisfying a second threshold and based on the associated timing information, adjustment data; and
causing, based on a subsequent request for the content item and based on the adjustment data, a second output of the content item.
1.A method comprising:
sending, to a computing device and based on a first output of a content item, telemetry data indicative of an event;
receiving, from the computing device and based on the telemetry data, adjustment data configured to adjust a second output of the content item; and
causing, based on the adjustment data, an adjusted second output of the content item.
As Table 2 clearly illustrates, the only limitation not taught by claim 1 of the conflicting patent No. 12,212,817 B2 is:
sending, to a computing device and based on a first output of a content item, telemetry data indicative of an event
receiving, from the computing device and based on the telemetry data, adjustment data configured to adjust a second output of the content item.
However, Sood discloses sending, to a computing device and based on a first output of a content item, telemetry data indicative of an event (Sood Fig. 1-3, ¶0015, 0019, 0025, 0028-0033, 0042-0043, 0048, 0053, transmitting the playback experience data having data indicative of events occurring in the video, e.g. different factors affecting playback experience or quality); and receiving, based on the telemetry data, adjustment data configured to adjust a second output of the content item (Sood Fig.1-3, ¶0037, 0049-0050, 0097-0099, receiving, based on the playback experience data, playback instructions/adjustments to adjust the playback e.g. change quality of the playback mid-stream).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify conflicting Patent No. 12,212,817 B2 by sending, based on a first output of a content item, telemetry data indicative of an event; receiving, based on the telemetry data, adjustment data configured to adjust a second output of the content item as disclosed by Sood. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to yield predicable results of adjusting the video to improve the quality of experience thereby enhancing the user’s viewing experience.
Conflicting Patent No. 12,212,817 B2 and Sood do not expressly disclose receiving, from the computing device and based on the telemetry data, adjustment data configured to adjust a second output of the content item.
Hallberg discloses receiving, from the computing device and based on the telemetry data, adjustment data configured to adjust a second output of the content item (Hallberg Fig.1-11, ¶0042, 0048, 0054, 0056-0057, receiving, from the remote site/facility including networking unit 34 and based on the collected information of television, e.g. various settings, preferred settings to adjust the display/output of the video).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify conflicting Patent No. 12,212,817 B2 and Sood by receiving, from the computing device and based on the telemetry data, adjustment data configured to adjust a second output of the content item as disclosed by Hallberg. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to yield predictable results of remotely receive from the server optimal/up-to-date adjustments for various settings of the television thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
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 of this title, 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, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20180048921 A1 to Sood in view of US Pub. No. 20070209047 A1 to Hallberg.
As to claims 1, 8 and 15, Sood discloses a method comprising:
sending, to a computing device and based on a first output of a content item, telemetry data indicative of an event (Sood Fig. 1-3, ¶0015, 0019, 0025, 0028-0033, 0042-0043, 0048, 0053, transmitting, to a server, the playback experience data having data indicative of events occurring in the video, e.g. different factors affecting playback experience or quality);
receiving, based on the telemetry data, adjustment data configured to adjust a second output of the content item (Sood Fig.1-3, ¶0037, 0049-0050, 0097-0099, receiving, based on the playback experience data, playback instructions/adjustments to adjust the playback e.g. change quality of the playback mid-stream); and
causing, based on the adjustment data, an adjusted second output of the content item (Sood Fig.1-3, ¶0037, 0049-0050, 0097-0099, displaying the video based on the playback adjustment e.g. change quality of the playback mid-stream).
Sood does not expressly disclose receiving, from the computing device and based on the telemetry data, adjustment data configured to adjust a second output of the content item
Hallberg discloses receiving, from the computing device and based on the telemetry data, adjustment data configured to adjust a second output of the content item (Hallberg Fig.1-11, ¶0042, 0048, 0054, 0056-0057, receiving, from the remote site/facility including networking unit 34 and based on the collected information of television, e.g. various settings, preferred settings to adjust the display/output of the video).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sood by receiving, from the computing device and based on the telemetry data, adjustment data configured to adjust a second output of the content item as disclosed by Hallberg. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to yield predictable results of remotely receive from the server optimal/up-to-date adjustments for various settings of the television thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
As to claims 4 and 11, Sood discloses wherein the telemetry data indicative of the event is sent periodically during the first output of the content item (Sood Fig. 1-3, ¶0015, 0019, 0025, 0028-0033, 0042-0044, 0048, 0053, playback experience data may be automatically provided on a periodic basis by the media player).
As to claims 5, 12 and 18, Sood discloses wherein the adjustment data configured to adjust the second output of the content item comprises instructions to adjust a bitrate of the content item (Sood Fig.1-3, ¶0037, 0049-0050, 0097-0099, adjusting bit rate).
Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20180048921 A1 to Sood in view of in view of US Pub. No. 20070209047 A1 to Hallberg and in further view of US Pub. No. 20120054664 A1 to Dougall.
As to claims 2, 9 and 16, Sood discloses wherein the telemetry data indicative of the event is sent to an aggregator (Sood Fig.1-3, ¶0037, 0048-0050, 0097-0099, playback experience data transmitted to the server).
Sood and Hallberg do not expressly disclose the adjustment data configured to adjust the second output of the content item is received from the aggregator
Dougall discloses the adjustment data configured to adjust the second output of the content item is received from the aggregator (Dougall Fig. 2, 4, ¶0051, server transmitting display parameters to adjust the video).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sood and Hallberg by the adjustment data configured to adjust the second output of the content item is received from the aggregator as disclosed by Dougall. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to remotely receive from the server the adjustments for the video thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
As to claims 3, 10 and 17, Sood discloses wherein receiving the adjustment data configured to adjust the second output of the content item is further based on the aggregator receiving a plurality of telemetry data indicative of events similar to the event (Sood Fig.1-3, ¶0092-0095, playback adjustment based on the server receiving a plurality of reports of the playback issue data similar/repeated playback issues).
As to claims 6, 13 and 19, Sood and Hallberg do not express disclose wherein the adjustment data configured to adjust the second output of the content item comprises instructions to adjust a volume of the content item.
Dougall discloses wherein the adjustment data configured to adjust the second output of the content item comprises instructions to adjust a volume of the content item (Dougall Fig. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, ¶0032, 0034, 0075, volume adjustment for the content).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sood and Hallberg by wherein the adjustment data configured to adjust the second output of the content item comprises instructions to adjust a volume of the content item as disclosed by Dougall. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to optimize the playback of the content by adjusting the volume thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20180048921 A1 to Sood in view of US Pub. No. 20070209047 A1 to Hallberg and in further view of US Pub. No. 20170185616 A1 to Jakobowski.
As to claims 7, 14 and 20, Sood and Hallberg do not expressly disclose receiving a first portion of the content item from a first content server; receiving, based on the adjustment data, a second portion of the content item from a second content server; and
wherein causing the adjusted second output of the content item further comprises outputting the first portion of the content item and the second portion of the content item.
Jakobowski discloses receiving a first portion of the content item from a first content server; receiving, based on the adjustment data, a second portion of the content item from a second content server (Jakobowski ¶0020-0022, receiving the first segment from a first content server and a second segment from a second content server based on the manifest file specifying different bit rates); and
wherein causing the adjusted second output of the content item further comprises outputting the first portion of the content item and the second portion of the content item (Jakobowski ¶0019-0022, adjusting the output of content by outputting the first segment and the second segment based on the manifest specifying different bit rates).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sood and Hallberg by receiving a first portion of the content item from a first content server; receiving, based on the adjustment data, a second portion of the content item from a second content server; and wherein causing the adjusted second output of the content item further comprises outputting the first portion of the content item and the second portion of the content item as disclosed by Jakobowski. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to retrieve content segments located on different servers reducing network loads, free capacity, lower delivery costs, and/or reduce content download time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Claims 1-20 have been rejected.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYU CHAE whose telephone number is (571)270-5696. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00am -4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NASSER MOAZZAMI can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYU CHAE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights