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 Amendment
This office action is in response to communications filed 07/16/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot due to new grounds of rejection.
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, 3-4, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kalaichelvan et al (US 2023/0291942 and hereafter referred to as “Kala”)
Regarding Claim 1, Kala discloses a method comprising:
requesting, by a user device and based on user-initiation of a trick play operation, at least one fragment of a content item associated with the trick play operation (Page 3-4, paragraph 0030, I-frames, chunks, Figure 2, 204, 206),
after requesting the at least one fragment and based on metadata associated with the at least one fragment, determining, by the user device, at least one I-frame associated with the at least one fragment (Page 3-4, paragraph 0030-0031, I-frames, chunks, Figure 2, 204, 206, Figure 1, 126, Figure 1B); and
causing output of the at least one I-frame to perform the trick play operation (Page 3-4, paragraph 000030-0031, I-frames, Figure 2, 212).
Regarding Claim 3, Kala discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Kala discloses wherein requesting, by the user device and based on the user- initiation of the trick play operation, the at least one fragment of the content item associated with the trick play operation comprises requesting the at least one fragment based on a manifest file associated with the content item (Page 3-4, paragraph 0030-0031, I-frames, chunks, Figure 2, 204, 206, Figure 1, 126, Figure 1B).
Regarding Claim 4, Kala discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Kala discloses wherein determining the at least one I-frame associated with the at least one fragment comprises monitoring the metadata associated with the at least one fragment to determine that the user device has received the at least one I-frame associated with the at least one fragment (Page 3-4, paragraph 0030-0031, I-frames, chunks, Figure 2, 204, 206, Figure 1, 126, Figure 1B – information of the file include frame, bitrate).
Regarding Claim 6, Kala discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Kala discloses wherein requesting, by the user device and based on user initiation of the trick play operation, the at least one fragment of the content item associated with the trick play operation comprises initiating a download of the at least one fragment (Page 3-4, paragraph 0030-0031)
Regarding Claim 9, Kala discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Kala discloses wherein the user device comprises one or more of a set-top box, a television, a display device, a computer, a smartphone, a laptop, a tablet, a multimedia playback device, or a portable electronic device (Figure 1, 120).
Regarding Claim 10, Kala discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Kala discloses wherein the trick play operation comprises one or more of a rewind operation or a fast-forward operation (Page 3-4, paragraph 0030-0031).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kala.
Regarding Claim 2, Kala discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Kala discloses wherein requesting, by the user device and based on the user- initiation of the trick play operation, the at least one fragment of the content item associated with the trick play operation (Page 3-4, paragraph 0030-0031, I-frames, chunks, Figure 2, 204, 206, Figure 1, 126, Figure 1B). Kala does not explicitly disclose the trick play operation comprises requesting the at least one fragment during output of the content item by the user device. Official notice is taken that it is notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date to display a movie or television show and fast forward or rewind while watching the program in order to allow a user to rewind a scene they missed watching or fast forward through a boring scene.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kala in view of Vensiyani et al (US 2023/0291912 and hereafter referred to as “Vensiyani”).
Regarding Claim 5, Kala discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Kala does not explicitly teach discarding. Vensiyani discloses further comprising: based on determining the at least one I-frame associated with the at least one fragment, discarding at least one P-frame or at least one B-frame associated with the at least one fragment (paragraph 0043, 0049). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kala to include the missing limitation as taught by Vensiyani in order to minimize memory requirements (Page 1, paragraph 0002) as disclosed by Vensiyani.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights