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 .
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 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 12-15 and 23-25 of U.S. Patent No. US 10804958 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is anticipated by the reference claims.
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 and 22-27 of U.S. Patent No. US 12224814 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is anticipated by the reference claims.
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, 4-8, 10-14, 16-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU et al. Pub. No.: US 2012/0278449 (Hereinafter "WU") in view of MacInnis Pub. No.: US 2016/0134673 (Hereinafter "MacInnis").
Regarding Claim 1, Wu discloses a method comprising:
sending, by a user device, a request for a content item (see fig.5, step 505 and paragraph [0065]: media delivery system receives a request to stream an AV program to a client device (e.g., to BD-player 202));
receiving, by the user device, an instruction to download a minimum quantity of blocks of a data stream associated with the content item, before initiating playback of the data stream (see fig. 5, step 520 and paragraph [0067]: after the clip information files for an AV program have been generated (and a particular encoding has been selected) the client device begins downloading the first clip file (e.g., a sequence of GOPs) from the media delivery system. Once downloaded, streaming playback may begin), wherein the minimum quantity of blocks is based on a quality of service measurement associated with a network connection of the user device (see paragraph [0069]: the client device may identify a change in prevailing bandwidth conditions that justifies increasing (or decreasing) the then current streaming bit rate. In a particular embodiment, the client device may be begin streaming playback by requesting the first clip file of an AV program using the lowest available bit rate encoding. Doing so may allow the streaming playback to begin more rapidly than by downloading a clip file encoded at a higher bit rate. However, as the prevailing bandwidth conditions allow, the client device may request clip files at progressively higher bit rate encodings--improving audio video quality.);
receiving, by the user device, a first portion of the data stream (see paragraph [0022]: portions of an AV program that are downloaded to a BD-Player may be stored in a local storage of the BD-Player as one or more AV stream files subsequently delivered to the decoder of the BD-Player as a stream of AV data for playback.);
Wu fails to disclose:
initiating, by the user device and based on a determination that the first portion of the data stream satisfies the minimum quantity of blocks, the playback of the data stream.
In analogous art, MacInnis teaches:
initiating, by the user device and based on a determination that the first portion of the data stream satisfies the minimum quantity of blocks, the playback of the data stream (see fig.3B and paragraph [0050]: multiple segments may be buffered in advance prior to beginning playback to mitigate interruptions, and all segments may be stored in the FIFO buffer. In some implementations, such as where playback is to begin immediately, then at step 342, the segment may be decoded and provided to a display of the client).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wu with the teaching as
taught by MacInnis in order to allow delivery of media to client devices at bit rates that may be dynamically adjusted based on network congestion, latency, processing delays, etc. so as to provide a stream at the best quality possible without interruption.
Regarding Claim 2, Wu in view of MacInnis discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Wu further discloses receiving, by the user device and after receiving the first portion of the data stream, a second portion of the data stream, wherein a payload size of the first portion is different from a payload size of the second portion (see paragraphs [0072-0073]).
Regarding Claim 4, Wu in view of MacInnis discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Wu further discloses receiving, based on the quality of service measurement, a quantity of groups of pictures in at least one block of the first portion of the data stream (see paragraph [0069]).
Regarding Claim 5, Wu in view of MacInnis discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Wu further discloses receiving a plurality of blocks, each having a payload size of zero, interleaved with one or more blocks of the first portion of the data stream (see paragraphs [0051] and [0068]).
Regarding Claim 6, Wu in view of MacInnis discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. MacInnis further discloses sending the quality of service measurement with the request for the content item (see paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 7, Wu in view of MacInnis discloses an apparatus comprising:
one or more processors (Wu, see fig.4, paragraph [0052] in view of MacInnis, see fig.2A, paragraph [0029]); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause (Wu, see fig.4, paragraphs [0055, 0057] in view of MacInnis, see paragraph [0085]) the apparatus to perform the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation is being analyzed as discussed with respect to
the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation is being analyzed as discussed with respect
to the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitation is being analyzed as discussed with respect
to the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation is being analyzed as discussed with respect
to the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 13, Wu discloses a system (see figs.2-4) comprising:
a user device (see fig.4: BD-Player 202) and a computing device (see fig.3: media delivery system 210), wherein the user device comprises:
one or more first processors (see fig.4, Playback logic 404, CPU 442); and
first memory storing first instructions that, when executed by the one or more first processors (see paragraph [0055]: Playback logic 404 provides one or more sequences of computer executable instructions for performing various functions that are described further herein. The instructions comprising playback logic 404 may be stored on a non-volatile memory of BD-player 202 such as, for example, a hard disk, flash memory, or firmware of BD player 202.), cause the user device to:
send, to the computing device, a request for a content item (see fig.5, step 505 and paragraph [0065]: media delivery system receives a request to stream an AV program to a client device (e.g., to BD-player 202));
receive an instruction to download a minimum quantity of blocks, of a data stream associated with the content item, before initiating playback of the data stream, wherein the minimum quantity of blocks is based on a quality of service measurement associated with a network connection of the user device (see fig. 5, step 520 and paragraph [0067]: after the clip information files for an AV program have been generated (and a particular encoding has been selected) the client device begins downloading the first clip file (e.g., a sequence of GOPs) from the media delivery system. Once downloaded, streaming playback may begin), wherein the minimum quantity of blocks is based on a quality of service measurement associated with a network connection of the user device (see paragraph [0069]: the client device may identify a change in prevailing bandwidth conditions that justifies increasing (or decreasing) the then current streaming bit rate. In a particular embodiment, the client device may be begin streaming playback by requesting the first clip file of an AV program using the lowest available bit rate encoding. Doing so may allow the streaming playback to begin more rapidly than by downloading a clip file encoded at a higher bit rate. However, as the prevailing bandwidth conditions allow, the client device may request clip files at progressively higher bit rate encodings--improving audio video quality.);
receive a first portion of the data stream (see paragraph [0022]: portions of an AV program that are downloaded to a BD-Player may be stored in a local storage of the BD-Player as one or more AV stream files subsequently delivered to the decoder of the BD-Player as a stream of AV data for playback.); and
wherein the computing device (see fig.3: media delivery system 210) comprises:
one or more second processors (see fig.3: central processing unit (CPU) 305); and
second memory storing second instructions that, when executed by the one or more second processors (see paragraph [0047]: The CPU 305 retrieves and executes programming instructions stored in the memory 325. Similarly, the CPU 305 stores and retrieves application data residing in the memory 325. The interconnect 320 facilitates transmission of programming instructions and application data between the CPU 305, I/O devices interface 310, storage 330, network interface 315, and memory 325.), cause the computing device to:
send, to the user device, the instruction processors (see paragraph [0047]: The interconnect 320 facilitates transmission of programming instructions and application data between the CPU 305, network interface 315.).
Wu fails to disclose:
initiate, based on a determination that the first portion of the data stream satisfies the minimum quantity of blocks, the playback of the data stream.
In analogous art, MacInnis teaches:
initiate, based on a determination that the first portion of the data stream satisfies the minimum quantity of blocks, the playback of the data stream (see fig.3B and paragraph [0050]: multiple segments may be buffered in advance prior to beginning playback to mitigate interruptions, and all segments may be stored in the FIFO buffer. In some implementations, such as where playback is to begin immediately, then at step 342, the segment may be decoded and provided to a display of the client).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wu with the teaching as
taught by MacInnis in order to allow delivery of media to client devices at bit rates that may be dynamically adjusted based on network congestion, latency, processing delays, etc. so as to provide a stream at the best quality possible without interruption.
Regarding Claim 14, Wu in view of MacInnis discloses the system as discussed in the rejection of claim 13. Wu further disclose wherein the first instructions, when executed by the one or more first processors, cause the user device to: receive, after receiving the first portion of the data stream, a second portion of the data stream, wherein a payload size of the first portion is different from a payload size of the second portion (see paragraphs [0072-0073]).
Regarding Claim 16, Wu in view of MacInnis discloses the system as discussed in the rejection of claim 13. Wu further disclose wherein the first instructions, when executed by the one or more first processors, cause the user device to: receive, based on the quality of service measurement, a quantity of groups of pictures in at least one block of the first portion of the data stream (see paragraph [0069]).
Regarding Claim 17, Wu in view of MacInnis discloses the system as discussed in the rejection of claim 13. Wu further disclose wherein the first instructions, when executed by the one or more first processors, cause the user device to: receive a plurality of blocks, each having a payload size of zero, interleaved with one or more blocks of the first portion of the data stream (see paragraphs [0051] and [0068]).
Regarding Claim 18, Wu in view of MacInnis discloses the system as discussed in the rejection of claim 13. MacInnis further wherein the first instructions, when executed by the one or more first processors, cause the user device to send the quality of service measurement with the request for the content item (see paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 19, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 1 in “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Wu in view of MacInnis discussed with respect to claim 1 in “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 2 in “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Wu in view of MacInnis discussed with respect to claim 2 in “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 4 in “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Wu in view of MacInnis discussed with respect to claim 4 in “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 5 in “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Wu in view of MacInnis discussed with respect to claim 5 in “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor.
Regarding Claim 24, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 6 in “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Wu in view of MacInnis discussed with respect to claim 6 in “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor.
Claims 3, 9, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU et al. Pub. No.: US 2012/0278449 (Hereinafter "Wu") in view of MacInnis Pub. No.: US 2016/0134673 (Hereinafter "MacInnis") further in view of Baldwin et al. Pub. No.: US 2004/0093618 (Hereinafter "Baldwin").
Regarding Claim 3, Wu in view of MacInnis discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Wu further discloses receiving, by the user device and after receiving the first portion of the data stream, a second portion of the data stream (see paragraphs [0072-0073]).,
Wu in view of MacInnis fail to disclose:
wherein the second portion of the data stream has a greater i-frame interval than the first portion of the data stream.
In analogous art, Baldwin teaches:
wherein the second portion of the data stream has a greater i-frame interval than the first portion of the data stream (see paragraphs [0025-0026]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wu in view of MacInnis with
the teaching as taught by Baldwin in order to reduce latency and buffer delays experienced by viewers during broadcast digital video transmission, which is well recognized goal in the field of digital media streaming.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation is being analyzed as discussed with respect to
the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 15, Wu in view of MacInnis discloses the system as discussed in the rejection of claim 13. Wu further discloses wherein the first instructions, when executed by the one or more first processors, cause the user device to: receive, after receiving the first portion of the data stream, a second portion of the data stream (see paragraphs [0072-0073]).,
Wu in view of MacInnis fail to disclose:
wherein the second portion of the data stream has a greater i-frame interval than the first portion of the data stream.
In analogous art, Baldwin teaches:
wherein the second portion of the data stream has a greater i-frame interval than the first portion of the data stream (see paragraphs [0025-0026]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wu in view of MacInnis with
the teaching as taught by Baldwin in order to reduce latency and buffer delays experienced by viewers during broadcast digital video transmission, which is well recognized goal in the field of digital media streaming.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 3 in “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Wu in view of MacInnis and Baldwin discussed with respect to claim 3 in “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alazar Tilahun whose telephone number is (571)270-5712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, From 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALAZAR TILAHUN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/A.T/
April 1, 2026