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 .
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.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/12/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 12,273,576 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The objection to claim 18 has been withdrawn.
The Double Patenting over the US Patent No. 12,273,576 has been withdrawn in light of the submitted terminal disclaimer being approved.
The Double Patenting over the US Patent No. 12,301,931 is maintained due to the non-submission of terminal disclaimer for the above patent and the non-persuasive arguments (pages 9-10). As of the current state of the amended claims in this instant application, the claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined application claims are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims as indicated in the previous Office action as well as in the below following section.
Applicant's arguments in the Remarks filed on 06/12/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments (pages 10-16), Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Panje discloses a receiving client device (as “an endpoint device”) obtains a playlist of an ordered list of URLs for a plurality of media files to be fetched from a streaming server for playback (¶ [0019]-[0020], ¶ [0026]-[0027] and ¶ [0031]). Panje also discloses the receiving client device has ability to measure network performance and select a variant of other chunks of media file containing higher or lower bitrate streams depending on a dynamic available bandwidth conditions (¶ [0029]-[0030], ¶ [0033]-[0036], ¶ [0043]-[0047] and ¶ [0057]). Panje is silent about obtaining by the endpoint device a maximum value of a streaming parameter for the video streaming session, and the selecting the variant is based on the maximum value, which is relied on the teaching of Huang.
Huang discloses a client device (as “an endpoint device”) executes an endpoint application (hindsight application 150 in Figure 1) implementing a video rate selection algorithm to select and download a highest possible quality encoded version of each source chunk of a media file without exceeding an available network throughput trace (as “a maximum value of a streaming parameter”) during media streaming session (¶ [0030]-[0031] and ¶ [0036]-[0037]). Huang discloses the hindsight application 150 or the endpoint application of the client device receives media title 120, chunk map 130 and network throughput trace 140 from a communication network (Figure 1), computes or measures download end and start times, minimum and maximum download size (as “measured value for the streaming parameter”) associated with each source chunk (¶ [0041]-[0062]), and generates a version selection sequence to be downloaded by selecting largest and highest possible quality encoded version of each source chunk based on the received network throughput trace and the measured download end and start times, minimum and maximum download size (Figures 2-4; ¶ [0070] and ¶ [0077]-[0087]).
Therefore, the combined teaching of Panje and Huang still meets the amended claims.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 8-14 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-17 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,301,931. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, the instant application claim 1 and the US patent claim 1 are both drawn to the same invention.
The claims differ in scope since the instant application claim 1 is broader in every aspect than the patent claim 1 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by the patent claim 1 in that claim 1 of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 1 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 2-5 correspond to the patent claims 5-8 respectively.
Claims 8-11 correspond to the patent claims 9-12 respectively.
Claim 12 corresponds to the patent claims 13-14.
Claims 13-14 correspond to the patent claims 15-16 respectively.
Claims 19-20 correspond to the patent claims 17 and 20 respectively.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panje et al (US 2018/0041787) in view of Huang et al (US 2019/0364084).
Regarding claim 1, Panje discloses a method comprising:
acquiring, by a processing system of an endpoint device including at least one processor, a playlist identifying a plurality of video files and an order in which the plurality of video files is to be played back during a video streaming session on the endpoint device (¶ [0019]-[0020], ¶ [0026]-[0027] and ¶ [0031] for a receiving client device (as “an endpoint device”) obtains a playlist of an ordered list of URLs for a plurality of media files to be fetched from a streaming server for playback during a video streaming session);
selecting, by the processing system from among the plurality of video files, a subsequent video file, wherein the subsequent video file is scheduled in the playlist for playback after a playback of a currently playing video file of the plurality of video files ends, and wherein the subsequent video file includes a second plurality of chunks (¶ [0029]-[0030]);
selecting, by the processing system for each chunk of the second plurality of chunks, a variant, such that a second plurality of variants is selected in which each variant of the second plurality of variants corresponds to one chunk of the second plurality of chunks, wherein the selecting the variant is based on a measured value for the streaming parameter (¶ [0029]-[0030], ¶ [0033]-[0036], ¶ [0043]-[0047] and ¶ [0057] for the receiving client device has ability to measure network performance and select a variant of other chunks of media file containing higher or lower bitrate streams depending on a dynamic available bandwidth conditions); and
downloading, by the processing system, the second plurality of variants to a local buffer of the endpoint device (¶ [0033]-[0036], ¶ [0043]-[0047] and ¶ [0057]-[0059]).
Panje is silent about obtaining a maximum value of a streaming parameter for the video streaming session, and the selecting the variant is based on the maximum value.
Huang discloses a client device (as “an endpoint device”) executes an endpoint application (hindsight application 150 in Figure 1) implementing a video rate selection algorithm to select and download a highest possible quality encoded version of each source chunk of a media file without exceeding an available network throughput trace (as “a maximum value of a streaming parameter”) during media streaming session (¶ [0030]-[0031] and ¶ [0036]-[0037]). Huang discloses the hindsight application 150 or the endpoint application of the client device receives media title 120, chunk map 130 and network throughput trace 140 from a communication network (Figure 1), computes or measures download end and start times, minimum and maximum download size (as “measured value for the streaming parameter”) associated with each source chunk (¶ [0041]-[0062]), generates a version selection sequence to be downloaded by selecting largest and highest possible quality encoded version of each source chunk based on the received network throughput trace and the measured download end and start times, minimum and maximum download size, and downloads the second plurality of variants to a local buffer of the endpoint device (Figures 2-4; ¶ [0070] and ¶ [0077]-[0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Panje system with the teaching of Huang about obtaining a maximum value of a streaming parameter and the selecting the variant is based on both the maximum value and a measured value for the streaming parameter, so to enhance system with an alternative way of selecting variant of chunk take into account of more factors of network streaming parameters.
Regarding claim 3, Panje in view of Huang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses wherein the streaming parameter comprises at least one of: a maximum allowed video resolution of the subsequent video file, a maximum allowed encoding bitrate of the subsequent video file, a maximum allowed average throughput over a duration of the video streaming session, a maximum allowed instantaneous throughput for the video streaming session, a maximum allowed file size per chunk of the second plurality of chunks, a maximum allowed file size of the subsequent video file, a maximum allowed data size per request for the endpoint device, a maximum allowed total data consumption for the video streaming session, or a maximum allowed total data consumption over a period of time during the video streaming session (taught by Panje; ¶ [0090] and ¶ [0204]-[0205]; and taught by Huang; ¶ [0036], ¶ [0041]-[0042] and ¶ [0054]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 5, Panje in view of Huang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses wherein the maximum value varies over a duration of the video streaming session (Huang’s Figure 2B).
Regarding claim 6, Panje in view of Huang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses wherein a magnitude of the maximum value depends upon at least one of: a subscription tier to which a user of the endpoint device is subscribed, a connectivity of a service plan with which the endpoint device is associated, or a current network condition in a network segment of the communications network in which the endpoint device is operating (taught by Panje; ¶ [0014]-[0015] and ¶ [0028]-[0029]; and taught by Huang; ¶ [0036], ¶ [0041]-[0042] and ¶ [0064]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 8, Panje in view of Huang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses wherein each chunk of the second plurality of chunks contains a subset of a plurality of video frames making up the subsequent video file (Panje’s Figure 4 and Huang’s Figure 2A).
Regarding claim 9, Panje in view of Huang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 8. The combined system further discloses wherein each variant of the second plurality of variants is selected from among a plurality of candidate variants, and each candidate variant of the plurality of candidate variants comprises a version of the subsequent video file that is encoded with a different combination of codec, resolution, and bitrate (taught by Panje; ¶ [0028] and ¶ [0033]-[0036]; and taught by Huang; ¶ [0037]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 10, Panje in view of Huang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 9. The combined system further discloses wherein the selecting the second plurality of variants balances a number of the second plurality of chunks against the combination of codec, resolution, and bitrate such that the downloading avoids exceeding a maximum bitrate (taught by Panje; ¶ [0028]-[0029] and ¶ [0033]-[0034]; and taught by Huang; ¶ [0020]-[0025], ¶ [0063]-[0069] and ¶ [0097]-[0098]).
Regarding claim 11, Panje in view of Huang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses repeating, by the processing system, the obtaining, the selecting the subsequent video file, the selecting the second plurality of variants, and the downloading on a periodic basis (Panje’s Figure 8; and Huang’s Figures 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 12, Panje in view of Huang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses
identifying, by the processing system for the currently playing video file of the plurality of video files, a first plurality of chunks that have yet to be downloaded to the endpoint device (taught by Panje; ¶ [0029]-[0030]; and taught by Huang; Figures 2-4; ¶ [0070] and ¶ [0077]-[0087]);
selecting, by the processing system for each chunk of the first plurality of chunks, a variant, such that a first plurality of variants is selected in which each variant of the first plurality of variants corresponds to one chunk of the first plurality of chunks (taught by Panje; ¶ [0029]-[0030], ¶ [0033]-[0036] and ¶ [0043]-[0047]), wherein the selecting for each chunk of the first plurality of chunks is based on both the maximum value and the measured value for the streaming parameter (taught by Huang; Figures 2-4; ¶ [0070] and ¶ [0077]-[0087]);
downloading, by the processing system, the first plurality of variants to the local buffer of the endpoint device (taught by Panje; ¶ [0033]-[0036], ¶ [0043]-[0047] and ¶ [0057]-[0059]; and taught by Huang; Figures 2-4; ¶ [0070] and ¶ [0077]-[0087]); and
repeating, by the processing system, the identifying the first plurality of chunks, the selecting the first plurality of variants, and the downloading the first plurality of variants on a periodic basis (Panje’s Figure 8; and Huang’s Figures 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 13, Panje in view of Huang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 12. The combined system further discloses wherein the selecting the first plurality of variants balances a number of the first plurality of chunks against a combination of codec, resolution, and bitrate of the first plurality of variants such that the downloading the first plurality of variants avoids exceeding a maximum bitrate (taught by Panje; ¶ [0028]-[0029] and ¶ [0033]-[0034]; and taught by Huang; ¶ [0020]-[0025], ¶ [0063]-[0069] and ¶ [0097]-[0098]).
Regarding claims 19-20, all limitations of claims 19-20 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claim 1.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panje et al (US 2018/0041787) in view of Huang et al (US 2019/0364084) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nukala et al (US 2012/0210351).
Regarding claim 2, Panje in view of Huang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system is silent about each video file of the plurality of video files has a duration in an order of minutes.
Nukala discloses each video file of the plurality of video files has a duration in an order of minutes (¶ [0018] and ¶ [0046]-[0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Panje in view of Huang system with the teaching of Nukala, so to provide a customized program presentation of a series of short time video based on user desire in the benefits of enhancing user viewing experience.
Regarding claim 7, Panje in view of Huang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system is silent about the subsequent video file is selected such that a content of the subsequent video file matches a preference of a user of the endpoint device.
Nukala discloses the subsequent video file is selected such that a content of the subsequent video file matches a preference of a user of the endpoint device (¶ [0046]-[0047] and ¶ [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Panje in view of Huang system with the teaching of Nukala, so to provide a customized program presentation of a series of short time video based on user preference in the benefits of enhancing user viewing experience.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panje et al (US 2018/0041787) in view of Huang et al (US 2019/0364084) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Chandrashekar (US 2022/0417305).
Regarding claim 4, Panje in view of Huang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. The combined system is silent about the streaming parameter is the maximum allowed average throughput over the duration of the video streaming session, and wherein an instantaneous throughput at a given time in the duration of the video streaming session is permitted to exceed the maximum allowed average throughput, as long as an average throughput over the duration of the video streaming session does not exceed the maximum allowed average throughput.
Chandrashekar discloses the streaming parameter is the maximum allowed average throughput over the duration of the video streaming session (¶ [0048]-[0050 and ¶ [0056]-[0058]), and wherein an instantaneous throughput at a given time in the duration of the video streaming session is permitted to exceed the maximum allowed average throughput, as long as an average throughput over the duration of the video streaming session does not exceed the maximum allowed average throughput (Figure 3 and ¶ [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Panje in view of Huang system with the teaching of Chandrashekar, so to enable a flexibility of choosing and adjusting an throughput parameter for streaming video during a short time session.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panje et al (US 2018/0041787) in view of Huang et al (US 2019/0364084) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Phillips et al (US 2015/0295762).
Regarding claim 14, Panje in view of Huang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 12. The combined system further discloses the available quantity or quality of the streaming parameter is limited by the maximum value (taught by Panje; ¶ [0090] and ¶ [0204]-[0205]; and taught by Huang; ¶ [0036], ¶ [0041]-[0042] and ¶ [0054]-[0058]), but is silent about the processing system partitions an available quantity or quality of the streaming parameter between the currently playing video file and the subsequent video file according to a predefined policy.
Phillips discloses the processing system partitions an available quantity or quality of the streaming parameter between the currently playing video file and the subsequent video file according to a predefined policy, and the available quantity or quality of the streaming parameter is limited by the maximum value (¶ [0005]-[0008], ¶ [0024] and ¶ [0028]-[0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Panje in view of Huang system with the teaching of Phillips, so to improve the content distribution according to a policy in a constraint network resource.
Regarding claim 15, Panje in view of Huang and further in view of Phillips discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 14. The combined system further discloses wherein the predefined policy is motivated by at least one of: a user preference, a quality of experience target, or a network condition (taught by Phillips; ¶ [0005]-[0008], ¶ [0024] and ¶ [0028]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 16, Panje in view of Huang and further in view of Phillips discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 14. The combined system further discloses wherein the predefined policy allocates more resources for the downloading of the first plurality of variants than for the downloading of the second plurality of variants (taught by Phillips; ¶ [0029]-[0032] for allocating more bandwidth resources for transmitting content file with higher priority to higher priority destination sites).
Regarding claims 17-18, Panje in view of Huang and further in view of Phillips discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 14. The combined system further discloses wherein the predefined policy splits the available quantity or quality of the streaming parameter equally between the currently playing video file and the subsequent video file (taught by Phillips; ¶ [0029]-[0032] for transmitting content files to destination sites with the same priority level, such as priority 4 with splitting equally at 4/15 share of 30 Mbps bandwidth).
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 GIGI L DUBASKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/GIGI L DUBASKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights