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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "and the start first time precedes…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaftan (US 2010/0043022).
Regarding claim 1, Kaftan discloses a management method implemented by a management entity device and comprising:
managing storage of parts of content following successive broadcasts of said parts, wherein the parts that have been broadcast are stored over a given time range preceding a current broadcast time, wherein the time range varies over time (caching or storing each content stream as it is being broadcast for a predefined period of time which depends on the duration of the content currently being broadcast. Furthermore, different contents will have different duration, therefore, the predefined period of time varies over time; see at least paragraph 0098).
Regarding claim 2, Kaftan discloses the management method according to claim 1, wherein the time range has a start time, referred to as a first time, and the content has a start time, referred to as a second start time, and the first start time coincides with the second start time (the start range of the available start over period begins with the program start time; see at least paragraph 0098).
Regarding claim 3, Kaftan discloses the management method according to claim 2, comprising executing a time delay before a delayed playback of the stored content (the start over service is implemented within the context of a near video on demand service and the start over request is only processed periodically and different instances of the cached copy of the stream are transmitted on a periodic bases, i.e. once a minute, once every 5 minutes, etc.; see at least paragraph 0107).
Claim 6 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1, wherein the server is met by an edge router; see at least paragraph 0099.
Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaftan in view of Truong (US 2015/0382031).
Regarding claim 4, Kaftan discloses the management method according to claim 1, wherein the time range has a start time, referred to as a first time, and the content has a start time, referred to as a second start time; see at least paragraph 0098, but is not clear about a start first time precedes a second start time.
Truong discloses similar invention and discloses the above missing limitation; programs preceding the current program, i.e. just missed, are available in the time rage stored for rebroadcasting, therefore, this time range begins before the start of the content currently being broadcast; see at least Fig. 10 and paragraph 0047.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kaftan by the teachings of Truong by having the above limitations so to be able to allow a client device to restart a media program; see at least the Abstract.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaftan in view of Alexander (US 2010/0129050).
Regarding claim 5, Kaftan discloses the management method according to claim 1, but is not clear about wherein the content is broadcast on a plurality of different broadcast channels, and a sum of the time ranges associated with some or all of the channels is less than a given value.
Alexander discloses the above missing limitation; a buffer enabling storage of programs currently being broadcast on a plurality of channels. The buffer has a max size which then divided among the programs; see at least paragraphs 0030-0032.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kaftan by the teachings of Alexander by having the above limitations so to be able to implement a pause live television service; see at least the Abstract.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/YASSIN ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426