Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed 06/18/2025. Claims 6, 9, 16, 20, 25, 29, 32, 43, 46, 53, 57, 62, 66 and 69 have been amended. Claims 7, 10, 13, 17, 21-22, 26-28, 30-31, 33-34, 37, 44, 47, 50, 54, 58-59, 63-65, 67-68, 70-72 and 75 have been cancelled. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-20, 23-25, 29, 32, 35-36, 38-43, 45-46, 48-49, 51-53, 55-57, 60-62, 66, 69 and 72-74 are presented for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/18/2025 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
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-20, 23-25, 29, 32, 35, 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paixao (US 2020/0045351 A1).
6. As to claim 1, Paixao teaches a method of operating a media delivery system comprising a shared communications channel between a service provider and a plurality of user systems in a multicast domain, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a provider-media module of the service provider, a manifest of a media object comprising a plurality of concurrent media elements ([0072]: intercepts an HTTP response from an external service provider containing an MPD manifest for the requested multimedia content resource), the manifest identifying a plurality of renditions of at least one media element of the plurality of concurrent media elements ([0075]: determines based on the MPD manifest the various versions of the multimedia content that are capable of being streamed by the external service provider), the plurality of renditions each having one or more attributes defined in the manifest ([0073]: header information of data packets associated with the multimedia traffic can be inspected to identify one or more attributes) (Fig. 8, [0072-0078]);
identifying, by the provider-media module, at least one rendition of the plurality of renditions for deletion from the manifest by applying a trimming rule to the manifest (i.e., all available versions having a bandwidth requirement that would exceed the maximum bandwidth threshold would be considered prohibited versions) (Fig. 8, [0072-0078]);
deleting, by the provider-media module, the at least one rendition to produce a trimmed manifest for the plurality of user systems in the multicast domain, the plurality of user systems including a requesting user system and a non-requesting user system (i.e., removing information regarding the one or more prohibited versions from the MPD manifest) (Fig. 8, [0072-0078]);
delivering, by the provider-media module, the trimmed manifest to at least the requesting user system and the non-requesting user system of the plurality of user systems in the multicast domain over the shared communications channel of the media delivery system (i.e., provides the updated MPD manifest to the client device) (Fig. 8, [0029] and [0072-0078]); and
delivering a rendition from the trimmed manifest to the requesting user system and the non-requesting user system (i.e., different versions/formats may be prohibited for the different sets of users/systems) ([0029] and [0049]).
7. As to claim 2, Paixao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of concurrent media elements comprises a video element and an audio element ([0059]).
8. As to claim 3, Paixao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying does not identify all renditions of the plurality of concurrent media elements for deletion such that the trimmed manifest includes a default rendition of each of the plurality of concurrent media elements (i.e., the updated MPD manifest can be sent to the client device along with a default version selected from the multiple available versions of the multimedia content based on the policies) ([0029] and [0049]).
9. As to claim 4, Paixao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the trimming rule comprises a predetermined trimming rule (i.e., preconfigured active policies) applicable to the one or more attributes of the plurality of renditions defined in the manifest to identify the at least one rendition for deletion ([0027] and [0049]).
10. As to claim 5, Paixao teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the predetermined trimming rule identifies the at least one rendition for deletion only based on the one or more attributes of the at least one rendition defined in the manifest (i.e., policies can be defined based on any or combination of factors such as source/destination IP address, protocol, user ID, content genre, user/group/sub-net information, service provider, device type and/or format of media content) ([0032] and [0049]).
11. As to claim 6, Paixao teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of concurrent media elements comprises at least one of: a video element, and the predetermined trimming rule is applicable to one or more of an encryption format, a video encoding format (video codec), a color model, a resolution, a dynamic range, a %-seg value, a maximum bit rate, an average bit rate, or a supported media player operating system; or an audio element, and the predetermined trimming rule is applicable to one or more of an audio encoding format (audio codec), a number of audio channels, an audio language, a %-seg value, a maximum bit rate, an average bit rate, or a supported media player operating system (i.e., device type, content format, resolution, bandwidth, etc.) ([0041] and [0049]).
12. As to claim 8, Paixao teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the predetermined trimming rule defines a specified value of an attribute of a rendition to be deleted from the manifest (i.e., a typical HD video stream can consume more than 2.5 Mbps, while the same content in SD uses around 0.7 Mbps; any version options exceeding a predefined resolution or bandwidth threshold can be removed from the MPD manifest) ([0045-0049]).
13. As to claim 9, Paixao teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the predetermined trimming rule defines a specified attribute of the one or more attributes within a predetermined relationship of a predetermined attribute threshold for the specified attribute, the specified attribute being less than, greater than, less than or equal to, greater than or equal to, or equal to the predetermined attribute threshold (i.e., a typical HD video stream can consume more than 2.5 Mbps, while the same content in SD uses around 0.7 Mbps; any version options exceeding a predefined resolution or bandwidth threshold can be removed from the MPD manifest) ([0045-0049]).
14. As to claim 11, Paixao teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the one or more attributes comprise a frequency of user use of a given rendition relative to other renditions of a given concurrent media element, and the predetermined trimming rule identifies the at least one rendition for deletion based on the frequency of user use of the given rendition relative to the other renditions of the given concurrent media element (i.e., policies can be defined based on any or combination of factors/attributes including user information [such as user usage history], sub-net/group information [such as bandwidth allowed], … policies can also be tailored based on various other characteristics, including, but not limited to, time of the day, day of week [read as frequence of user use], one or more current bandwidth usage metrics, different user groups, network segments, [user] device types and service providers) ([0049]).
15. As to claim 12, Paixao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the trimming rule comprises a parametric trimming rule that identifies the at least one rendition for deletion at least in part based on an external parameter not contained in the manifest (i.e., policies can also be tailored based on various other characteristics, including, but not limited to, time of the day, day of week, one or more current bandwidth usage metrics, different user groups, network segments, device types and service providers) ([0049]).
16. As to claim 14, Paixao teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the external parameter comprises a calculated value that is determined based on a function applied to the one or more attributes of the plurality of renditions defined in the manifest (i.e., a typical HD video stream can consume more than 2.5 Mbps, while the same content in SD uses around 0.7 Mbps; any version options exceeding a predefined resolution or bandwidth threshold can be removed from the MPD manifest) ([0045-0049]).
17. As to claim 15, Paixao teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the external parameter comprises information regarding a content of a cache at the requesting user system (i.e., policies can also be defined based on any or combination of factors including, but not limited to, a source IP address, a destination IP address, a device type associated with the requesting client device such as a mobile device, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a set-top-box, or an Internet Television (IPTV), whose cache’s type and size can be obtained/retrieved) ([0045] and [0049]).
18. As to claim 16, Paixao teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the parametric trimming rule identifies the at least one rendition for deletion based on the at least one rendition not being in the cache at the requesting user system (i.e., allow higher quality options to professors and university staff, reasonable quality options to students and no multimedia traffic for a guest network, hence, higher quality options/versions not being in the cache at students and guest systems) ([0071]), and wherein the parametric trimming rule does not identify a rendition for deletion if a given attribute of one or more attributes is less than a predetermined attribute threshold (i.e., allow a set of VIP users to see all versions of the streaming media content as being provided by the service provider) ([0049]).
19. As to claim 18, Paixao teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the external parameter comprises an operating parameter of the media delivery system (i.e., policies can also be tailored based on various other characteristics, including, but not limited to, time of the day, day of week, one or more current bandwidth usage metrics, different user groups, network segments, device types and service providers) ([0049]).
20. As to claim 19, Paixao teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the operating parameter is a characteristic of the shared communications channel (i.e., one or more current bandwidth usage metrics) ([0049]).
21. As to claim 20, Paixao teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the operating parameter comprises an available bandwidth measure of the shared communications channel comprising an expected available bandwidth estimate of the shared communications channel during a duration of playback of the media object, wherein an attribute of the one or more attributes is a required bandwidth value, and wherein the parametric trimming rule identifies the at least one rendition for deletion when the at least one rendition comprises a required bandwidth value that is greater than the available bandwidth measure of the shared communications channel (i.e., policies can be tailored based on one or more currently bandwidth usage metrics, and a typical HD video stream can consume more than 2.5 Mbps, while the same content in SD uses around 0.7 Mbps. For example, any version options exceeding a predefined resolution or bandwidth threshold can be removed from the MPD manifest) ([0045-0049]).
22. As to claim 23, Paixao teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the operating parameter comprises a congestion level of the shared communications channel (i.e., policies can be defined based on any or combination of factors/attributes including, but not limited to, user information, sub-net information [could include congestion level information], … policies can also be tailored based on various other characteristics, including, but not limited to, time of the day, day of week, one or more current bandwidth usage metrics, different user groups, network segments [could include congestion level information], device types and service providers) ([0049]).
23. As to claim 24, Paixao teaches the method of claim 23, wherein an attribute of the one or more attributes is a network capacity of the shared communications channel required to send a rendition to any of the plurality of user systems, and wherein the parametric trimming rule identifies the at least one rendition for deletion based on the at least one rendition having the network capacity exceed available network capacity as indicated by the congestion level of the shared communications channel (i.e., policies can be tailored based on one or more currently bandwidth usage metrics, and a typical HD video stream can consume more than 2.5 Mbps, while the same content in SD uses around 0.7 Mbps, determining one or more prohibited versions of the various available formats that exceed a bandwidth limitation specified by the policy, updating the MPD manifest by removing information regarding the one or more prohibited versions from the MPD manifest) ([0048-0049]).
24. As to claim 25, Paixao teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising: determining a quality level of the at least one rendition based on the one or more attributes defined in the manifest; wherein the external parameter comprises a playback capability of the requesting user system, and wherein an attribute of the one or more attributes corresponds to the quality level of the at least one rendition, and wherein the parametric trimming rule identifies the at least one rendition for deletion based on at least one of the quality level of the at least one rendition exceeding the playback capability of the requesting user system or at least one rendition being incompatible with the playback capability of hardware of the requesting user system (i.e., based on the [playback capability of] requesting client device type including, but not limited to, a mobile device, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a set-top box, or an Internet Television (IPTV), the requested media or multimedia content may be available for streaming by service provider in multiple versions, for example, 2160p content (Ultra-HD) version, 1080p content (Full HD) version, 720p content (Half HD) version, 480p version, 360p version and 240p version) ([0045]); (policies can be tailored based on one or more currently bandwidth usage metrics, and a typical HD video stream can consume more than 2.5 Mbps, while the same content in SD uses around 0.7 Mbps, determining one or more prohibited versions of the various available formats that exceed a bandwidth limitation specified by the policy, updating the MPD manifest by removing information regarding the one or more prohibited versions from the MPD manifest) ([0048-0049]).
25. As to claim 29, Paixao teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the external parameter comprises information regarding at least one of usage of the requesting user system allowed in a data plan agreement regarding utilization of the shared communications channel or usage of the shared communications channel by the requesting user system (i.e., allow a set of VIP users to see all versions of the streaming media content as being provided by the service provider) ([0049]).
26. As to claim 32, Paixao teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the external parameter comprises content metadata regarding the media object, the content metadata regarding the media object comprising at least one of information regarding a type of the media object comprising one of live media content or on-demand media content or popularity metadata regarding a popularity of the media object (i.e., the requested media or multimedia content may be available for streaming by service provider in multiple versions, for example, 2160p content (Ultra-HD) version, 1080p content (Full HD) version, 720p content (Half HD) version, 480p version, 360p version and 240p version) ([0045]); (a genre associated with the media content) ([0049]).
27. As to claim 35, Paixao teaches the method of claim 32, wherein the content metadata is received from a source of the media object (i.e., a user device 108a-c can request streaming media content from a streaming service provider 102a-c … The requested media or multimedia content may be available for streaming by service provider in multiple versions, for example, 2160p content (Ultra-HD) version, 1080p content (Full HD) version, 720p content (Half HD) version, 480p version, 360p version and 240p version) ([0045]).
28. As to claim 36, Paixao teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the external parameter comprises a location of the requesting user system (i.e., policies can be defined based on any or combination of factors/attributes including, but not limited to a source IP address, a destination IP address, a protocol, a user identifier, a genre associated with the media content, user/sub-net information [could include location information], group information, a service provider, etc.) ([0049]).
29. Claims 38-43, 45-46, 48-49, 51-53, 55-57, 60-62, 66, 69 and 72-74 are corresponding system claims that recite similar limitations as of method claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-20, 23-25, 29, 32 and 35-36, and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
30. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action.
31. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE (3) months from the mailing date of this communication. See 37 CFR 1.134.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3886.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAMAL B. DIVECHA, can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUANG N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441