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 to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 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.
Claims Status
Claims 1-10 are currently pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,490,167 B2 to Gupta et al in-view US 8,904,457 B2 to Sood et al.
As to claim 1, Gupta discloses a meth33od comprising: managing access by a client device 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 being performed by the client device and comprising: receiving a file transmitted by said server the file associating time segments of the sequence of data chunks with data chunk identifiers (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).
Gupta fails explicitly discloses selecting by the client device an action among a generation by said client device within said file of at least one chunk identifier associated with a time segment of the sequence of data chunks and a transmission of a request towards said server to receive said file again.
Sood discloses selecting by the client device an action among a generation by said client device within said file of at least one chunk identifier associated with a time segment of the sequence of data chunks and a transmission of a request towards said server to receive said file again (see col10,ll.9-21).
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 controls to respond to user actions and manage playback of a live stream in a non-live mode by seeking to various locations in the manifest and requesting the appropriate media chunks.
As to claim 2, Gupta further discloses wherein the client device displays at least one of the data chunks; and said action is selected based on a comparison of a time interval between a current time and the time segment corresponding to the at least one data chunk 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 5, Sood further discloses wherein the generated identifier is adapted to be determined by said client as not corresponding to said at least one server (see col10,ll.9-21).
As to claim 6, Gupta further discloses in response to the client device detecting the identifier that was generated by the client device within said file, during a preparation of a request for a data chunk, 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 comprising the client device displaying a position indicator indicating a position of 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 manage access by the client device to content available on at least one server through a telecommunication network said content being temporally segmented in to a sequence of data chuck (see fig.15, col.21,ll.31-41); receiving a file from a content server, the file associating time segment of the sequence of data chunk with data chunk identifiers (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).
Gupta fails explicitly discloses selecting an action among a generation within said file of at least one chunk identifier associated with a time segment of the sequence of data chunks and a transmission of a request towards said server to receive said file again.
Sood discloses selecting by the client device an action among a generation by said client device within said file of at least one chunk identifier associated with a time segment of the sequence of data chunks and a transmission of a request towards said server to receive said file again (see col10,ll.9-21).
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 controls to respond to user actions and manage playback of a live stream in a non-live mode by seeking to various locations in the manifest and requesting the appropriate media chunks.
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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights