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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 1-4, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ben Eli et al., US 2017/0149860.
Regarding claim 1, Ben Eli teaches of a method of operating a terminal for seamless playback of content (See [0034] reduced latency for seamless playback by prefetching part of the content), the method comprising:
downloading and storing in a storage of the terminal, by a download agent of the terminal, initial segments of each of a plurality of contents, wherein the initial segments of each content comprising at least some of a plurality of media segments composing each content (See [0006]-[0010], [0031]-[0034]; [0045]; [0049]-[0058]; [0062]-[0066]; [0070]-[0075]; and [0081]-[0082] which discloses of prefetching and downloading in the storage/cache of the terminal/smartphone by a download/prefetch agent element 68 whereby the initial segments of each of a plural segments of each content of the content item are downloaded in advance to reduce latency where the plural content items consist of at least content of different quality/rates);
transferring, by a local web server of the terminal, initial segments of a first content among the media segments stored in the storage to a player of the terminal (See which discloses of [0034]; [0062]-[0078]; Fig. 1, element 68 wherein the prefetch agent/proxy is construed to be that of the local web server since it retrieves and passes the segments of the media content from the storage to the media player of the terminal, the content being requested by URL’s and http, the proxy possessing the server functionality of at least temporarily storing and passing the segments to the media player and the download agent being the prefetch agent which performs the downloading); and
requesting, by the local web server, the download agent to download remaining segments of the first content ([0034]; [0062]-[0078]; Fig. 1, element 68 wherein the prefetch agent/proxy is construed to be that of the local web server since it retrieves and passes the segments of the media content from the storage to the media player of the terminal, the content being requested by URL’s and http, the proxy possessing the server functionality of at least temporarily storing and passing the segments of the initial and subsequent segments to the media player and the download agent being the prefetch agent which performs the downloading after request from the proxy server processing the requests of which is then downloaded/obtained from the cache and/or external server from the download agent which is construed to be part of/portion of the prefetch agent/proxy. In other words, the claim is silent with respect to whether the download agent is a separate entity/device or is a portion/software module of the prefetch agent/proxy. Hence, the actual downloading and obtaining step is construed to be that of the download agent).
Regarding claim 2, Ben Eli teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, after the requesting: transmitting, by the download agent, a storage notification indicating that the remaining segments of the first content have been stored in the storage (See [0055]-[0075] which discloses of the download agent/prefetch agent transmitting a storage notification/index file which indicates the segments and locations of the content being stored at the cache and/or server. It should be noted that the claim is silent with respect to what the actual notification consists of).
Regarding claim 3, Ben Eli teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: requesting by the player, the remaining segments of the first content form the local web browser (See [0055]-[0078] player requests the subsequent segments with the requests and content being passed through the proxy), and transferring, by the local web server, the remaining segments of the first content to the player upon receiving the storage notification (See [0055]-[0078] which discloses that upon receiving the manifest file/location of the urls/ notification detailed what contents, segments and locations of which the content is stored, that the segments are then located and transferred to the player).
Regarding claim 4, Ben Eli teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, before the transferring: receiving, by the player, a content playback request including a streaming URL of the first content (See [0006]-[0010], [0031]-[0034]; [0045]; [0049]-[0058]; [0062]-[0066]; [0070]-[0075]; and [0081]-[0082 which discloses of the media player requesting a URL); and
requesting, by the player, the initial segments of the first content from the local web serve (See [0006]-[0010], [0031]-[0034]; [0045]; [0049]-[0058]; [0062]-[0066]; [0070]-[0075]; and [0081]-[0082 which discloses of the media player requesting the beginning and initial portions of the content by the web server/proxy/prefetch agent).
Regarding claim 10, Ben Elli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of content comprises: a plurality of different videos, or a plurality of different sections within a single video (See [0006]-[0010] different videos of at least different qualities).
Regarding claim 11, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Eli et al., US 2017/0149860 in view of Chamberlin, US 2019/0208263.
Regarding claim 5, Ben Eli teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: removing, by the download agent, unneeded media segments among the media segments of the first content stored in the storage (See [0069] removing played segments from the buffer).
Ben Eli is silent with respect to the removing being in response to a content change request into a second content distinct from the first content.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chamberlin teaches of the removing being in response to a content change request into a second content distinct from the first content (See [0015] and [0060]).
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 the teachings of Ben Eli to have incorporated the teachings of Chamberlin for the mere benefit of clearing space in memory.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the unneeded media segments comprise:
other media segments among the media segments of the first content stored in the storage, excluding media segments for playing the first content from a beginning and media segments for continuously playing the first content from a last viewing point (See Ben Eli, [0069] already played content is removed; Chamberlin, [0015] and [0060]).
5. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Eli et al., US 2017/0149860 in view of Chundi et al., US 2023/0103596.
Regarding claim 7, Ben Eli teaches of the method of claim 1, wherein the initial segments of each content have a certain number of segments to be buffered in the player at a start of playback to overcome network jitter (See analysis of claim 1).
Ben Eli is silent with respect to where the number of segments is greater than a minimum required number.
However, in the same field of endeavor Chundi teaches of where the number of segments is greater than a minimum required number (See [0046] threshold number of segments of the media content).
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 the teachings of Ben Eli to have incorporated the teachings of Chundi for the mere benefit of minimizing latency
Regarding claim 8, Ben Eli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the initial segments of each content comprise: media segments from a first media segment of each of the contents (See analysis of claim 1).
Ben Eli is silent with respect to the media segments of a preset number that is counted.
However, in the same field of endeavor Chundi teaches of media segments of a preset number that is counted (See [0046] threshold number of segments of the media content).
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 the teachings of Ben Eli to have incorporated the teachings of Chundi for the mere benefit of minimizing latency.
6. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Eli et al., US 2017/0149860 in view of Chundi et al., US 2023/0103596, and in further view of Lewis et al., US 2016/0077710.
Regarding claim 9, Ben Eli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the initial segments of each content comprise: media segments from a media segment corresponding to each of the contents (See analysis of claim 1).
Ben Eli is silent with respect to a preset number that is counted.
However, in the same field of endeavor Chundi teaches of media segments of a preset number that is counted (See [0046] threshold number of segments of the media content).
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 the teachings of Ben Eli to have incorporated the teachings of Chundi for the mere benefit of minimizing latency.
The combination is silent with respect to corresponding to a last viewing point of the media segment.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lewis teaches of corresponding to a last viewing point of the media segment (See [0056] retaining the last portion of the content).
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 the teachings of Ben Eli and Chundi to have incorporated the teachings of Lewis for the mere benefit of minimizing latency when resuming play.
Contact
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ricky Chin whose telephone number is 571-270-3753. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/Ricky Chin/
Primary Examiner
AU 2424
(571) 270-3753
Ricky.Chin@uspto.gov