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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/05/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/31/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dai et al. (US 20220141513 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Dai et al. teaches a method (Abstract) comprising:
receiving server side information for a request for playback of an instance of content, wherein the server side information is determined based on features that are based on historical playback of content by a plurality of client devices (Paragraphs 22-27; Paragraph 47);
mapping the server side information to a configuration for an adaptive bitrate algorithm (Paragraph 23; Paragraph 58);
determining, by the adaptive bitrate algorithm, a profile from a plurality of profiles based on the configuration, wherein the configuration is compared to bitrates of profiles in the plurality of profiles to select the profile (Paragraph 23); and
sending a request for a segment of the instance of content using the profile (Paragraph 30).
Regarding Claim 2, Dai et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining whether to use client side information, wherein client side information is based on historical playback of content from a client device that requested the playback of the instance of content (Paragraphs 22-27; Paragraph 30; Paragraphs 66-68).
Regarding Claim 3, Dai et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining whether to use client side information comprises: determining if the client device has local storage of the historical playback of content at the client device (Paragraphs 22-27; Paragraph 30; Paragraphs 66-68).
Regarding Claim 4, Dai et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the configuration comprises a first bitrate, the method further comprising: when using the client side information, mapping the client side information to a second bitrate, wherein the first bitrate and the second bitrate are used to determine the profile (Paragraphs 22-27; Paragraph 30; Paragraphs 66-69).
Regarding Claim 5, Dai et al. teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising: calculating a confidence score; and adjusting the second bitrate based on the confidence score to generate an adjusted second bitrate, wherein the first bitrate and the adjusted second bitrate are used to determine the profile (Paragraphs 22-27; Paragraph 30; Paragraphs 66-69; clearly teaches adaptively determining a session profile based on various conditions).
Regarding Claim 6, Dai et al. teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the confidence score is based on a time gap of a playback of content in the historical playback of content (Paragraphs 22-27; Paragraph 30; Paragraphs 66-69; Paragraph 74; clearly teaches adaptively determining a session profile based on various conditions including an elapsed time).
Regarding Claim 7, Dai et al. teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the confidence score is based on a variance of multiple playbacks of content in the historical playback of content (Paragraphs 22-27; Paragraph 30; Paragraphs 47-54; Paragraphs 66-69; Paragraph 74; Paragraph 111).
Regarding Claim 8, Dai et al. teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the variance is based on bandwidth experienced in the multiple playbacks (Paragraphs 22-27; Paragraph 30; Paragraphs 47-54; Paragraphs 66-69; Paragraph 74; Paragraph 111).
Regarding Claim 9, Dai et al. teaches the method of claim 5, wherein: a time gap confidence score is based on a time gap of a playback of content in the historical playback of content, a variance confidence score is based on a variance of multiple playbacks of content in the historical playback of content, and the confidence score is based on combining the time gap confidence score and the variance confidence score (Paragraphs 22-27; Paragraph 30; Paragraphs 47-54; Paragraphs 66-69; Paragraph 74; Paragraph 111).
Regarding Claim 10, Dai et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: sending a request for playback of the instance of content, wherein the server side information is received in response to the request (Paragraphs 22-27; Paragraph 30; Paragraphs 47-54; Paragraphs 66-69; Paragraph 74; Paragraph 111).
Regarding Claim 11, Dai et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein mapping the server side information to the configuration comprises: mapping a value of the server side information to a bitrate using a linear mapping (Paragraphs 22-27; Paragraph 30; Paragraphs 47-58; Paragraphs 66-69; Paragraph 74; Paragraph 111).
Regarding Claim 12, Dai et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein mapping the server side information to the configuration comprises: combining the server side information with a safe factor to determine a bitrate, wherein the safe factor is used to vary a conservativeness of selecting the bitrate (Paragraphs 22-27; Paragraph 30; Paragraphs 47-58; Paragraphs 66-70; Paragraph 74; Paragraph 111).
Regarding Claim 13, Dai et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the server side information is generated using a prediction network that is trained based on features from the historical playback of content by the plurality of client devices (Paragraphs 22-27; Paragraph 30; Paragraphs 47-58, clearly teaches training based on a current client history and other clients; Paragraphs 66-70; Paragraph 74; Paragraph 111).
Regarding Claim 14, Dai et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the configuration comprises a bitrate, and the adaptive bitrate algorithm compares the bitrate to the bitrates of profiles in the plurality of profiles to select the profile (Paragraphs 22-27; Paragraph 30; Paragraphs 47-58; Paragraphs 66-70; Paragraph 74; Paragraph 111).
Regarding Claim 15, Dai et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the configuration comprises a safe factor that is used to adjust a bitrate in the configuration, or the configuration comprises a target buffer level for maintaining data from the instance of content during the playback of the instance of content (Paragraphs 22-27; Paragraph 30; Paragraphs 47-58; Paragraphs 66-70; Paragraph 74; Paragraph 111).
Claim 16 is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions to perform the method of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons as above. Dai et al. further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions, which when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform the method (Paragraph 119).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights