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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 8 each recites the limitations “generation by said client within said file of at least one chunk identifier associated with a time segment”, “a transmission of a request towards said server to receive said file again”, and action is selected based on a comparison of an interval between a current time and a time segment which is being displayed with a threshold “. Which is unclear and/or not defined what the current time is or its relationship to the time segment currently being displayed. Therefore, the interval is not defined. Furthermore, it is not clear how the interval influences the selection of one action to another, and it also the action and time segment (which time segment and the same time as the time segment currently being displayed) is not clear.
Claims 3-7 and 9-10 are rejected as being dependent on the above-mentioned independent claims 1 and 8.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 11.490,167 B2 to Gupta et al.
As to claim 1, Gupta discloses a method comprising: managing access by a client to content available on at least one server through a telecommunications network, said content being temporally segmented into a sequence of data chunks (see fig.15, col.21,ll.31-41), said managing comprising: transmitting by said server a file associating time segments with data chunk identifiers, as well as an action selected among a generation by said client within said file of at least one chunk identifier associated with a time segment and a transmission of a request towards said server to receive said file again (see fig.5,9; col.6,ll.64-col.7,ll.20;col.8,ll.21-61 and col.12,ll.13-col.col.13,ll.9).
As to claim 2, Gupta further discloses wherein said action is selected based on a comparison of an interval between a current time and a time segment which is being displayed with a threshold (see fig.9; col.11, ll.13-16).
As to claim 3, Gupta further discloses wherein said generation is performed periodically, for a number of time segments corresponding to said period (see col.2,ll.36-52).
As to claim 4, Gupta further discloses wherein said period corresponds to a constant duration of said time segments (see col.2,ll.36-52).
As to claim 6, Gupta further discloses in response to an identifier generated by the client within said file during a preparation of a request for a data chunk being detected, transmitting a request towards said server to receive said file again (see fig.5; col.8,ll.34-61).
As to claim 7, Gupta further discloses wherein a position indicator is displayed to position said time segment which is being displayed based on the chunk identifiers present within said file (see col.5,ll.18-28).
As to claim 8, Gupta further discloses wherein said content is live-streamed content (see fig.1; col.4,ll.41-56).
As to claim 9, Gupta discloses a client (see fig.15) comprising: a processor configured to carry out: receiving a file from a content server, associating time segments with data chunk identifiers, and performing an action selected among a generation within said file of at least one chunk identifier associated with a time segment and a transmission of a request towards said server to receive said file again (see fig.5 and 9; col.6,ll.64-col.7,ll.20; col.8,ll.21-61 and col.12,ll.13-col.col.13,ll.9).
As to claim 10, Gupta further discloses a non-transitory computer readable data storage medium on which at least one series of program code instructions has been stored for execution of the method according to claim 1(see fig.1, 14-15; col.4,ll.41-56, col.18,ll.60-col.19,ll.12 and col.21,ll.31-41).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,490,167 B2 to Gupta et al in-view US 2014/0189761 A1 to Sood et al.
As to claim 5, Gupta fails explicitly discloses wherein the generated identifier is adapted to be determined by said client as not corresponding to said at least one server.
Sood discloses wherein the generated identifier is adapted to be determined by said client as not corresponding to said at least one server (see page.5,¶0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gupta with the teaching as taught by Sood in order to allowing the client to potentially receive cached assets from earlier requests, thereby increasing efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MULUGETA MENGESHA whose telephone number is (469)295-9212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM ET.
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.
MULUGETA MENGESHA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/Mulugeta Mengesha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424