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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to application filed 04/09/2025.
Claim 1-20 is pending in this application.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 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 limitation “means for receiving”, “means for activating” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 1-8, 10-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by International Organization for Standardization (herein after ISO, “Information technology — Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH) — Part 1: Media presentation description and segment formats” – Publication date: 02/26/2024).
Regarding claim 1, ISO discloses a method of retrieving media data, the method comprising: receiving an event message of a media presentation, the event message including data representing a media presentation time at which a service description for the media presentation is to be activated (pg. 40, Table 4, @start: if present, specifies the PeriodStart time of the Period. The PeriodStart time is used as an anchor to determine the MPD start time of each Media Segment as well as to determine the presentation time of each access unit in the Media Presentation timeline.);
receiving media data of the media presentation; and in response to receiving the event message of the media presentation including the data representing the media presentation time at which the service description is to be activated (pg. 168, 5.10.4.7.4, [0001]: When processing such an Event, the equivalent MPD with the added Period is generated as follows: If an Event is received with a new Event@id, then the client acts as follows: The processor uses the start time of the event to determine when the Period boundary will happen. If it decides to add a Period, it does as follows: The Period@start is set such that it matches the presentation time of the event),
activating the service description at the media presentation time and presenting the media data according to the service description (pg. 40, table 4, @start: The PeriodStart time is used as an anchor to determine the MPD start time of each Media Segment. pg. 168, 5.10.4.7.4, [0001]:All information on Period level is copied from the containing Period except for the information contained in the message that is processed.
Regarding claim 2, ISO discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a manifest file for the media presentation, the manifest file including data defining the service description and an identifier for the service description, wherein the event message includes the identifier for the service description to activate the service description (pg. 168, 5.10.4.7.4, [0001]: When processing such an Event, the equivalent MPD with the added Period is generated as follows: If an Event is received with a new Event@id, then the client acts as follows: The processor uses the start time of the event to determine when the Period boundary will happen. If it decides to add a Period, it does as follows: The Period@start is set such that it matches the presentation time of the event).
Regarding claim 3, ISO discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the event message includes data defining the service description (pg. 250, A.13.5, [0001]: MPD Events follow an equivalent data model to inband Events but are carried in the MPD within a Period element. Each Period event can have one or multiple EventStream elements, defining the EventStream@schemeIdUri, EventStream@value, EventStream@timescale, and contained
sequences of Event elements).
Regarding claim 4, ISO discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the event message is included in an Event element of an EventStream element at a Period level of a manifest file for the media presentation (pg. 250, A.13.5, [0001]: MPD Events follow an equivalent data model to inband Events but are carried in the MPD within a Period element).
Regarding claim 5, ISO discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the manifest file comprises a Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) media presentation description (MPD) (pg. 163, 5.10.4.1, [0001]: DASH specific events that are of relevance for the DASH Client are signalled in the MPD).
Regarding claim 6, ISO discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the service description includes data representing how the media presentation is to be consumed, including one or more of a service latency for the media presentation, a playback rate for the media presentation, an operating quality for the media presentation, an operating bandwidth for the media presentation (pg. 354, table K.3.5.1: Operating bandwidth. Minimum bandwidth value desired through
this presentation for the above MediaType), content steering for the media presentation, or a metadata reporting configuration for the media presentation (pg. 15, 4.2, [0001]: The DASH Client may use metadata provided in the MPD for the selection of media components by communication with the media streaming application. Such metadata may for example include codec capability information, language codes, accessibility information and other information for the selection of media components).
Regarding claim 7, ISO discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the event message includes data representing a duration of time for which the service description is to be activated (pg. 147-148, table 47: presentation_time provides the media presentation time of the Period.).
Regarding claim 8, ISO discloses the method of claim1,wherein the service description includes configuration information including one or more of data representing an abandon request rule (ABR) strategy, a buffer configuration, gap handling (pg. 232, 8.12.4.5, [0007]: Positive values of @eptDelta as well as negative values of @pdDelta shall be signalled in the MPD as they indicate a gap at the Period boundary. Negative values should be signalled as they provide an indication for an overlap at the Period boundary), or scheduling, the method further comprising: configuring a media streaming application for playback and operation according to the configuration information of the service description; and using the configured media streaming application to retrieve the media data of the media presentation (pg. 248, [0004]: Based on the information in the MPD, the DASH Client selects and schedules the fetching of Media Segments and appends them to the Media Buffer. This is typically done to maintain a stable playback buffer, but media segments are typically only parsed close to the time before their playback is scheduled).
Regarding claim 10, ISO discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to receiving the event message: determining that the event message includes an Event@id element comprising the data representing the media presentation time at which the service description is to be activated; and determining a start time at which to activate the service description in response to the event message including the Event@id element (pg. 168, 5.10.4.7.4, [0001]: If an Event is received with a new Event@id, then the client acts as follows:
The processor uses the start time of the event to determine when the Period boundary will happen. If it decides to add a Period, it does as follows: The Period@start is set such that it matches the presentation time of the event. The Period@id is added such that it matches the message).
Regarding claims 11 and 20; the claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 15; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 16; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 17; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 19; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISO in view of Sodagar (US 2021/0400353 A1).
Regarding claim 9, ISO discloses the method of claim 8.
However, ISO does not disclose wherein the event message includes callback information for sending a response from the media streaming application after applying the configuration information.
In an analogous art, Sodagar discloses wherein the event message includes callback information for sending a response from the media streaming application after applying the configuration information ([0070]: content server 502 provides initial MPD and MPD updates 512 as well as the media segments 513 to a DASH client, such as client 503, and whenever the client 503 receives a storyline event as part of MPD updates 512, the client 503 may expose this event to the user interface 501 to provide it to a user such that when the user decides on a choice, the user interface 501 informs the client 503, and the client 503 provides the selection, one or more selection callbacks 511, to the content server 502 so that the content server 502 updates the MPD accordingly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify ISO to comprise “wherein the event message includes callback information for sending a response from the media streaming application after applying the configuration information” taught by Sodagar.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled manifest to be updated based on the user selection where the user selection can be provided using a callback function (Sodagar, [0084]).
Regarding claim 18; the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants disclosure.
Nagaraj et al., US 9,591,361 A1: Streaming of Multimedia Data From Multiple Sources.
Rehan et al., US 9,444,863 B2: Manager for DASH Media Streaming.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C TURRIATE GASTULO whose telephone number is (571)272-6707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am-4 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, Brian J Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/J.C.T/Examiner, Art Unit 2446
/BRIAN J. GILLIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights