DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-30 are presented for consideration.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered.
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) 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddiqi et al. [ U.S. Patent No 10,182,096 ], in view of Joseph et al. [ US Patent No 10,148,716 ].
As per claim 1, Siddiqi discloses the inventio as claimed including a method of generating index information for adaptive streaming video delivery performance [ i.e. generate and sends to the client a manifest file ] [ Fig. 8; and col 8, lines 60-col 9, lines 6 ], comprising:
monitoring, by an index handler, operating characteristics of a plurality of independently managed networks of segment file servers [ i.e. the CDN assigned to Alice’s client device can be selected in a variety of ways, based on current estimated load, or distance, load balancing scheme, and performance metric associated with three different CDNs ] [ Figure 2; and col 3, lines 17-col 4, lines 29 ];
receiving from a user device, by the index handler, a request for obtaining video content [ i.e. manifest request ] [ 806, Figure 8; col 8, lines 49-61 ];
generating index information, using the index handler, designating at least two networks from the plurality of independently managed networks of segment file servers for retrieval of the video content based upon the monitored operating characteristics [ i.e. dynamic generate a manifest file including a priority rank list of CDNs ] [ 1108, Figure 11; col 13, lines 50-col 14, lines 9; and col 16, lines 21-43 ].
Siddiqi does not specifically disclose
wherein the index information comprises separate information for each of the designated at least two networks; and the separate information for a given network from the designated at least two networks enables the user device to request an index file for the requested video content from the given network; and
issuing to the user device, by the index handler, the index information.
Joseph discloses
wherein the index information comprises separate information for each of the designated at least two networks [ i.e. manifest file contains list of URLs pointing to different sub-manifest files, each of which corresponds to one particular bitrate and one particular server/CDN, and dynamic assembled flattened mix of URLs of chunks of various bitrates and CDNs/servers (chunks from CDN A and B ] [ col 3, lines 20-27; and col 5, lines 57-64 ]; and the separate information for a given network from the designated at least two networks enables the user device to request an index file for the requested video content from the given network [ i.e. Alice’s video player can switch between CDNs ] [ col 5, lines 28-67; and col 6, lines 6-20 ]; and
issuing to the user device, by the index handler, the index information [ i.e. generated/assembled manifest file can then be sent/provided to Alice’s video player ] [ col 6, lines 3-20; and col 9, lines 4-9 ].
It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Siddiqi and Joseph because the teaching of Joseph would enable to provide dynamic adjustment of the video bitrate and CDN can be utilized to optimize the viewing experience of the user [ Joseph, col 3, lines 55-61 ].
As per claim 2, Siddiqi discloses wherein designation of the at least two networks is further based upon a geographic location of networks in the plurality of independently managed networks of segment file servers [ i.e. location of CDNs ] [ Figure 1; and col 3, lines 1-50 ].
As per claim 3, Siddiqi discloses wherein designation of the at least two networks is further based upon a geographic location of a name server receiving the request for obtaining the video content [ i.e. DNS provider ] [ col 18, lines 28-53 ].
As per claim 4, Siddiqi discloses wherein the designated at least two networks are assigned priorities based upon a distribution policy [ i.e. prioritized ranked list of CDNs ] [ col 6, lines 53-55; and col 12, lines 61-col 13, lines 4 ].
As per claim 5, Joseph discloses wherein to monitor operating characteristics, the index handler receives information regarding performance of a given independently managed network of segment file servers from a cluster performance manager of the given independently managed network [ i.e. global distribution performance information ] [ col 8, lines 27-44 ].
As per claim 6, Siddiqi discloses wherein the index handler is a member of a cluster of index handlers, and the method further comprising selecting the receiving index handler from the cluster of index handlers to receive the request based on at least one of: the requesting user device deterministic distribution of requests, the receiving index handler having previously processed requests for the video content; or relative network distance to a location of the user device from the receiving index handler [ i.e. select a dispatcher server from the list ] [ Figure 20; and col 42, lines 54-col 43, lines 14 ].
As per claim 7, Siddiqi discloses assigning a session ID, and incorporating the session ID in the index information [ col 25, lines 1-4 ].
As per claim 8, Siddiqi discloses wherein each independently managed network is a content delivery network [ i.e. CDN ] [ Figure 8 ].
As per claim 9, Siddiqi discloses wherein the monitored operating characteristics comprise at least one of: availability, performance, load, network performance, or whether the video content is in memory [ i.e. load, bandwidth ] [ Figure 2; and col 3, lines 53-col 4, lines 9 ].
As per claim 10, Siddiqi discloses wherein designation of the at least two networks comprises providing a hostname for a network as part of the index information [ i.e. hostname ] [ col 20, lines 32-38 ]
As per claim 11, Siddiqi discloses wherein the index information is stored in a first index file, and issuing the index information to the user device comprises transmitting the first index file to the user device [ i.e. send or return manifest file to the client ] [ 808, Figure 8; col 8, lines 61-62; and col 25, lines 50-53 ].
As per claim 12, Siddiqi discloses collecting, by a given network in the plurality of independently managed networks of segment file servers, operating characteristics about the given network; and transmitting the collected operating characteristics to the index handler [ Figure 8; and col 8, lines 49-col 9, lines 6 ].
16. As per claim 13, Joseph discloses requesting, by the user device using the index information, the video content from a first network of the designated at least two networks [ i.e. determine that the best CDN to begin with is CDN B rather than CDN A ] [ col 8, lines 31-44 ].
17. As per claim 14, Siddiqi discloses receiving in response to the requesting, by the user device, an index file from the first network, the index file comprising a plurality of uniform resource locators (URLs) for requesting segments of the video content from one or more segment file servers in the first network [ i.e. m3u8 ] [ col 35, lines 36-67 ].
18. As per claim 15, Siddiqi discloses wherein the segments of the video content are stored within video segment files [ i.e. video chunks ] [ col 14, lines 10-18 ].
19. As per claim 16, Joseph discloses receiving in response to the requesting, by the user device, an index file from the first network, the index file comprising a plurality of uniform resource locators (URLs) for requesting segments of the video content from one or more segment file server clusters in the first network [ i.e. list URLs poiting chunks at one particular bitrate on CDN C ] [ col 3, lines 11-26 ].
As per claim 17, Siddiqi discloses wherein the segments of the video content are stored within video segment files [ i.e. video chunks ] [ col 14, lines 10-18 ].
21. As per claim 18, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 1, and 13, furthermore, Siddiqi discloses receiving, by the user device, the video content from the first network [ i.e. download and start playing the video chunks ] [ col 9, lines 16-19 ].
22. As per claim 19, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 8.
23. As per claim 20, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 11.
24. As per claim 21, Joseph discloses selecting, by the user device, a network for delivery of the video content from the designated at least two networks [ i.e. CDN A and B ] [ Figure 1; and col 5, lines 57-64 ].
25. As per claim 22, Joseph discloses selecting, by the user device, the first network from the designated at least two networks [ col 5, lines 57-col 6, lines 3 ].
As per claim 23, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 1, furthermore, Joseph discloses where the information designating the at least two networks is capable of enabling the user device at a later point in time to select a network from the at least two networks that is determined to be best suited to handle requests for video segment files of the particular video [ i.e. mid-stream CDN switching ] [ col 5, lines 57-col 6, lines 20; and col 8, lines 45-col 9, lines 9 ].
As per claims 24-30, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 2, 4-7, 9, and 11, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-30 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 PST.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-2727952. 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.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446