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 Date
This Office Action is in response to applicant's response filed on June 01, 2026, from
Non-Final Office Action mailed out on April 06, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10-11, 13, 16-17, 19 and 22-23 have been amended. Claims 2-
3, 8-9, 14-15 and 20-21 have been canceled. Claims 25-32 have been newly added.
Claims 1, 4-6, 7, 10-12, 13, 16-18, 19, 22-23 and 25-32 are pending in the Application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-6, 7, 10-12, 13, 16-18, 19, 22-23 and 25-32 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, 4-6, 7, 10-12, 13, 16-18, 19, 22-23 and 25-32 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, 4-6, 7, 10-12, 13, 16-18, 19, 22-23 and 25-32 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 § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16,18, 19, 22 and 25-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kordasiewicz et al. Pub. No.: US 20120117225 (Hereinafter " Kordasiewicz").
Regarding Claim 1, Kordasiewicz discloses a method comprising:
sending, by a user device, a request for a content item (see paragraph [0060]);
receiving, by the user device, an instruction to download a minimum quantity of blocks of the content item, before initiating playback of the content item 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 [0075] and [0134]);
Wu fails to disclose:
initiating, by the user device and based on receiving at least the minimum quantity of blocks, the playback of the content item (see paragraph [0060]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kordasiewicz discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Kordasiewicz further discloses receiving, based on the quality of service measurement, a quantity of groups of pictures in at least one block of a first portion of content item (see paragraph [0119]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kordasiewicz discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Kordasiewicz discloses further discloses sending the quality of service measurement with the request for the content item (see paragraph [0118]).
Regarding Claim 7, Kordasiewicz discloses an apparatus comprising:
one or more processors (see paragraph [0125]); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause (see paragraph [0125]) the apparatus to perform the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation is being analyzed as discussed with respect
to the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation is being analyzed as discussed with respect
to the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 13, Kordasiewicz discloses a system comprising:
a user device and a computing device (see fig.1), wherein the user device comprises:
one or more first processors (see paragraph [0125]); and
first memory storing first instructions that, when executed by the one or more first processors (see paragraph [0125]) cause the user device to:
send, to the computing device, a request for a content item (see paragraph [0060]);
receive an instruction to download a minimum quantity of blocks, of 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 paragraph [0075] and [0134]);
initiate, based on a determination that the first portion of the data stream satisfies receiving at least the minimum quantity of blocks, the playback of the content item (see paragraph [0060]);
wherein the computing device (see fig.1) comprises:
one or more second processors (see paragraph [0125]) and
second memory storing second instructions that, when executed by the one or more second processors (see paragraph [0125]), cause the computing device to:
send, to the user device, the instruction processors (see paragraph [0060]).
Regarding Claim 16, Kordasiewicz discloses the system as discussed in the rejection of claim 13. Kordasiewicz 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 content item (see paragraph [0119]).
Regarding Claim 18, Kordasiewicz discloses the system as discussed in the rejection of claim 13. Kordasiewicz 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 [0118]).
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 Kordasiewicz 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 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 Kordasiewicz 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 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 Kordasiewicz 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.
Regarding Claim 25, Kordasiewicz discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Kordasiewicz discloses, wherein the instruction changes an initial minimum buffer amount, for initiating playback, to the minimum quantity of blocks (see paragraphs [0077] -[0079]).
Regarding Claim 26, Kordasiewicz discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Kordasiewicz discloses wherein the instruction further indicates a bitrate for downloading the minimum quantity of blocks (see paragraphs [0077] -[0079]).
Regarding Claim 27, the limitation is being analyzed as discussed with respect
to the rejection of claim 25.
Regarding Claim 28, the limitation is being analyzed as discussed with respect
to the rejection of claim 26.
Regarding Claim 29, the limitation is being analyzed as discussed with respect
to the rejection of claim 25.
Regarding Claim 28, the limitation is being analyzed as discussed with
respect to the rejection of claim 30.
Regarding Claim 31, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 25 in “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Kordasiewicz discussed with respect to claim 25 in “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor.
Regarding Claim 32, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 26 in “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Kordasiewicz discussed with respect to claim 26 in “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor.
Claims 5, 11, 17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kordasiewicz et al. Pub. No.: US 20120117225 (Hereinafter " Kordasiewicz") in view of WU et al. Pub. No.: US 2012/0278449 (Hereinafter "Wu").
Regarding Claim 5, Kordasiewicz discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Kordasiewicz fails to disclose:
receiving a plurality of blocks, each having a payload size of zero, interleaved with one or more blocks of minimum quantity of blocks.
In analogous art, WU teaches
receiving a plurality of blocks, each having a payload size of zero, interleaved with one or more blocks of minimum quantity of blocks (see paragraphs [0051] and [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kordasiewicz with the teaching as taught by WU in order to present the highest quality audiovisual content to the viewer.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitation is being analyzed as discussed with respect
to the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 17, Kordasiewicz in view of WU 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 minimum quantity of blocks (see paragraphs [0051] and [0068]).
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 Kordasiewicz in 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights