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 . The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
This communication is considered fully responsive to the Amendment filed on 18 August 2026.
The 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 is/are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 18 August 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant direct arguments toward the uniqueness of Srinivasan’s SID identifiers. Applicant also contends the identifiers of Davis are unique. In both cases, Applicant draws support from the specification of each reference cited. Examiner agrees that idenitifers are unique. However, the Office again directs Applicant to para [0016] of Davis, “[t]he CDN-aware Session Id preferably has three parts--a region number, a session object version number (called a logical time stamp) and a usual SId.” This CDN-aware Id is an SId encoded with extra session information specific to the CDN, and is therefore unique to the content and also the CDN. The combined references teach the claims subject matter of a second session identifier. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20180241796-A1 to Srinivasan et al. (“Srinivasan”) in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20070271385-A1 to Davis et al. (“Davis”).
As to claim 1, Srinivasan disclose(s) a method comprising:
receiving, by a client device, a manifest comprising an indication of a first server device for accessing content and an indication of a second server device for accessing the content; (Srinivasan; provide manifest with first server[0039]; provide CDNS in the manifests; [0055]; fig. 1, CDN #1 and CDN #2, 120, 110)
accessing, based on the first session and from the first server device, a first portion of the content; (Srinivasan; downloading one segment from CDN; [0042]; segment teaches portion)
accessing, based on switching from the first session to the second session, a second portion of the content. (Srinivasan; downloading segment from alternate CDN; [0045])
Srinivasan does not expressly disclose receiving, from the first server device and based on a first request from the client device, a first session identifier associated with accessing the content via a first session with the first server device;
receiving, from the second server device and based on a second request from the client device, a second session identifier associated with accessing the content via a second session; and
wherein the second session identifier, associated with the second session, is maintained while the first portion of the content is accessed via the first session.
Davis discloses receiving, from the first server device and based on a first request from the client device, a first session identifier associated with accessing the content via a first session with the first server device; (Davis; CDN-aware session identifier [0016]; [0037]; returned to client; [0039])
receiving, from the second server device and based on a second request from the client device, a second session identifier associated with accessing the content via a second session; and (Davis; CDN-aware session identifier [0016]; [0037]; returned to client; [0039])
wherein the second session identifier, associated with the second session, is maintained while the first portion of the content is accessed via the first session. (Davis; session state mapped to a set of regions; [0051]; Davis disclose each CDN having a unique session identifier based on region; the region number is part of the session identifier)
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the region session identifiers of Davis and the CDN sessions of Srinivasan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with CDNs. Using the session ids were well known by those of skill in the art to uniquely identify sessions. Having multiple CDN sessions allows the content to be delivered from multiple regions.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." See MPEP 2141(I) and (III) quoting Supreme Court decision KSR.
As to claim 2, Srinivasan-Davis disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the client device switches from accessing the content via the first session to accessing the content via the second session based on a change to the first session. (Srinivasan; switching conditions; [0039])
As to claim 3, Srinivasan-Davis disclose(s) the method of claim 2, wherein the change to the first session comprises at least one of a quality of the first session dropping below a threshold quality, a bandwidth of the first session dropping below a threshold bandwidth, or receiving an instruction for the client device to switch to a different session. (Srinivasan; bandwidth conditions; [0035])
As to claim 4, Srinivasan-Davis disclose(s) the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from a third server device, a third session identifier; Srinivasan; second and a third content delivery network server; [0030])
establishing, based on the third session identifier, a third session with the third server device; (Davis; CDN-aware session identifier [0016]; [0037]; returned to client; [0039])
and
receiving, from the third server device and via the third session, a third portion of the content. (Srinivasan; downloading segment from alternate CDN; [0045])
As to claim 5, Srinivasan-Davis disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the first server device and the second server device each comprise at least one of a content delivery network, an edge location, a satellite, a base station, or a content origin. (Srinivasan; Content delivery network; [0006])
As to claim 7, Srinivasan-Davis disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the first server device is associated with a first geographic area and the second server device is associated with a second geographic area, and wherein the client device switches from accessing the content via the first session to accessing the content via the second session based at least in part on movement of the client device from the first geographic area to the second geographic area. (Davis; region [0016])
As to claim 9, Srinivasan-Davis disclose(s) a system comprising:
a client device configured to receive a manifest associated with accessing content;
and
a plurality of server devices comprising a first server device and a second server device, wherein the first server device is configured to:
send, to the client device and based on a first request from the client device, a first session identifier, the first session identifier associated with providing the client device access to the content via a first session between the client device and the first server device;
and
send, to the client device, a first portion of the content;
and
the second server device is configured to: send, based on a second request from the client device, a second session identifier, the second session identifier associated with providing the client device access to the content via a second session between the client device and the second server device;
and
send, to the client device, a second portion of the content via the second session, wherein the client device is configured to establish the second session based on a change to the first session.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 1.
As to claim 10, Srinivasan-Davis disclose(s) the method of claim 9, wherein the change comprises at least one of a quality of the first session dropping below a threshold quality, a bandwidth of the first session dropping below a threshold bandwidth, or sending an instruction for the client device to switch to a different session.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 3.
As to claim 11, Srinivasan-Davis disclose(s) the method of claim 9, wherein the first server device and the second server device each comprise at least one of a content delivery network, an edge location, a satellite, a base station, or a content origin.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 5.
As to claim 13, Srinivasan-Davis disclose(s) the method of claim 9, wherein the first server device is associated with a first geographic area and the second server device is associated with a second geographic area, and wherein the change to the first session is based at least in part on movement of the client device from the first geographic area to the second geographic area.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 7.
As to claim 15, Srinivasan-Davis disclose(s) a method comprising: receiving, by a client device and based on a request for content, a manifest comprising indications of a plurality of server devices;
receiving, based on one or more requests by the client device and from each one of the plurality of server devices, a different session identifier, wherein each session identifier is associated with a session between the client device and a different server device of the plurality of server devices;
accessing, by the client device and based on a first session associated with a first server device of the plurality of server devices, a first portion of the content;
establishing, based on a change to the first session and using a session identifier associated with a second server device of the plurality of server devices, a second session between the client device and the second server device of the plurality of server devices;
and
receiving, via the second session, a second portion of the content from the second server device.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 1.
As to claim 16, Srinivasan-Davis disclose(s) the method of claim 15, wherein the change to the first session comprises at least one of a quality of the first session dropping below a threshold quality, a bandwidth of the first session dropping below a threshold bandwidth, or receiving an instruction for the client device to switch to a different session.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 3.
As to claim 18, Srinivasan-Davis disclose(s) the method of claim 15, wherein the plurality of server devices comprises one or more of a content delivery network, an edge location, a satellite, a base station, or a content origin.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 5.
As to claim 19, Srinivasan-Davis disclose(s) the method of claim 15, wherein the first server device is associated with a first geographic area and the second server device is associated with a second geographic area, and wherein the change to the first session is based at least in part on movement of the client device from the first geographic area to the second geographic area.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 7.
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan-Davis in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20130080777-A1 to MARTELL et al. (“MARTELL”).
As to claim 6, Srinivasan-Davis disclose(s) the method of claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose wherein the first session identifier comprises one or more of a setup key, a cryptographic protocol supported by the first server device and the second server device, or a digital certificate.
MARTELL discloses wherein the first session identifier comprises one or more of a setup key, a cryptographic protocol supported by the first server device and the second server device, or a digital certificate . (MARTELL; session key; [0050])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the session key of MARTELL and the sessions of Srinivasan-Davis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with CDNs. Using the session key would allow for the sessions to be authenticated, i.e. secure.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." See MPEP 2141(I) and (III) quoting Supreme Court decision KSR.
As to claim 12, Srinivasan-Davis-MARTELL disclose(s) the method of claim 9, wherein the first session identifier comprises one or more of a setup key, a cryptographic protocol supported by the plurality of server devices, or a digital certificate.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 6.
As to claim 17, Srinivasan-Davis-MARTELL disclose(s) the method of claim 15, wherein the session identifier comprises one or more of a setup key, a cryptographic protocol supported by at least one of the first server device or the second server device, or a digital certificate.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 6.
Claim(s) 8, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan-Davis in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20240305620-A1 to Prabaharan et al. (“Prabaharan”).
As to claim 8, Srinivasan-Davis disclose(s) the method of claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose wherein the second session identifier associated with the second session comprises a threshold timeout time, and further comprising sending a request, by the client device and to the second server device, to refresh the second session identifier associated with the second session.
Prabaharan discloses wherein the second session identifier associated with the second session comprises a threshold timeout time, and further comprising sending a request, by the client device and to the second server device, to refresh the second session identifier associated with the second session. (Prabaharan; session timeout timer, refresh request; [0050])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the session timeout of Prabaharan and the sessions of Srinivasan-Davis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with sessions. Using the session timeout of Prabaharan would allow for the sessions to be kept open when active and closed when not in use.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." See MPEP 2141(I) and (III) quoting Supreme Court decision KSR.
As to claim 14, Srinivasan-Davis disclose(s) the method of claim 9, wherein the second session comprises a threshold timeout time, further comprising receiving a request, at the second server device, to refresh the second session identifier associated with the second session.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 8.
As to claim 20, Srinivasan-Davis- disclose(s) the method of claim 15, wherein the second session comprises a threshold timeout time, further comprising sending a request, by the client device and to the second server device, to refresh the session identifier associated with the second session.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5606. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached on (571) 270-1684. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BRYAN Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights