DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the original application filed on January 17, 2025.
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 1 is pending.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-36 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,878. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and ‘878 is directed to a method for adaptive bitrate streaming of encoded media contained within Matroska container files using Hypertext Transfer Protocol.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,542. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and ‘542 is directed to a method for adaptive bitrate streaming of encoded media contained within Matroska container files using Hypertext Transfer Protocol.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,856,020. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and ‘020 is directed to a method for adaptive bitrate streaming of encoded media contained within Matroska container files using Hypertext Transfer Protocol.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,341,698. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and ‘698 is directed to a method for adaptive bitrate streaming of encoded media contained within Matroska container files using Hypertext Transfer Protocol.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,244,272. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and ‘272 is directed to a method for adaptive bitrate streaming of encoded media contained within Matroska container files using Hypertext Transfer Protocol.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,621,522. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and ‘522 is directed to a method for adaptive bitrate streaming of encoded media contained within Matroska container files using Hypertext Transfer Protocol.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,247,311. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and ‘311 is directed to a method for adaptive bitrate streaming of encoded media contained within Matroska container files using Hypertext Transfer Protocol.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 8,909,922. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and ‘922 is directed to a method for adaptive bitrate streaming of encoded media contained within Matroska container files using Hypertext Transfer Protocol.
Conclusion
The prior art made or record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure is Kiefer (US Pub. No. 2013/0061045). Kiefer’s reference discloses:
Systems and methods for performing adaptive bitrate streaming using alternative streams of protected content in accordance with embodiments of the invention are described. One embodiment of the invention includes a processor, and memory containing a client application. In addition, the client application configures the processor to: request a top level index file identifying a plurality of alternative streams of protected content, where each of the alternative streams of protected content are encrypted using common cryptographic information; obtain the common cryptographic information; request portions of content from at least the plurality of alternative streams of protected content; access the protected content using the common cryptographic information; and playback the content.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TESHOME HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-3159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached at (571) 270-1050. 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.
/TESHOME HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights