DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23-25, 31-32 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 23 and 34 recites, “wherein both the first and the second playing modes are side-loading modes”. Please note that paragraph 0052 recites, “In some embodiments, multiple streams of media programs may be concurrently re-streamed by the streaming device (102) to a client device (102). One of the multiple streams of media programs may be played while others of the multiple streams of media programs may be side-loaded into the client device”. There is no disclosure of streaming both playing mode to be side-loading mode. Furthermore, this claim language contradicts the requirement set in independent claims 21 and 33 which requires both loading mode to be different.
Claims 24-25, 31-32 and 35-36 recites, “wherein the side-loading mode comprises side-loading audio transcription data” and “wherein the side-loading mode comprises loading the audio transcription data in parallel with playing audiovisual data of the media”. Specification at Paragraphs 0078 describes “audio transcription data” by reciting “As used herein, media program may refer to media data containing audio content including but not limited to any of: audio data, audio transcription data, audiovisual data, multimedia data, internet downloaded content data, multimedia data with markup language pages, videos, movies, multimedia presentations, audio books, electronic books, podcasts, etc. A media data unit may refer to a data unit containing audio data including but not limited to any of: audio samples, audio transcription data that may be used for voice synthesis…”. While specification recites, that media program could refer to “audio transcription data”, there is no support for “wherein the side-loading mode comprises side-loading audio transcription data” and “wherein the side-loading mode comprises loading the audio transcription data in parallel with playing audiovisual data of the media”. Correction/Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 23 and 34 are 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.
Claims 23 and 34 recites, “wherein both the first and the second playing modes are side-loading modes. This claim language contradicts the requirement set in independent claims 21 and 33 which requires both loading mode to be different. It is not clear how loading modes can be different and same at the same time. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 23 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As, pointed out above, claims 23 and 34 recites, “wherein both the first and the second playing modes are side-loading modes. This claim language contradicts the requirement set in independent claims 21 and 33 which requires both loading mode to be different and therefore, fails to further limit the subject matter of the claims 21 and 33.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 26-27, 30, 33-34 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kusunoki et al. (US 2007/0140647 A1), hereinafter, “Kusunoki”.
Regarding Claims 21 and 33, Kusunoki discloses a method and a corresponding system, wherein the system comprises:
a streaming device (See, Fig. 1, Numeral 1) comprising control circuitry configured to:
while streaming to a client device (See, Fig. 1, Numerals 51, 52 and 53), send to the client device portions of media (See, Paragraph 0047);
send a first portion to the client device, the first portion having been adapted by the streaming device for a first playing mode of the client device (See, Paragraph 0047); and
based at least in part on receiving, while streaming to the client device via the one or more communication paths, an indication of a user command from the client device specifying a second playing mode of the client device (See, Paragraphs 0050-0052), send a second portion to the client device, the second portion having been adapted by the streaming device for the second playing mode of the client device, wherein the second playing mode is different than the first playing mode, and wherein at least the first playing mode or the second playing mode is a side-loading mode (See, Paragraphs 0007, 0038-0040 and 0049-0052).
Regarding Claim 30, Kusunoki discloses a method performed by a client device (See, Fig. 1, Numerals 51, 52 and 53), comprising:
while a media stream from a streaming device (See, Fig. 1, Numeral 1) is received at the client device, receiving portions of media (See, Paragraph 0047), wherein:
a first portion of the portions of media is received from the streaming device, the first portion having been adapted by the streaming device for a first playing mode of the client device (See, Paragraph 0047);
a user command specifying a second playing mode of the client device is received while the media stream from the streaming device is received at the client device, wherein the second playing mode is different than the first playing mode (See, Paragraphs 0050-0052);
an indication of the user command is sent to the streaming device (See, Paragraph 0051); and
a second portion of the portions of media is received from the streaming device, the second portion having been adapted by the streaming device for the second playing mode of the client device, wherein at least the first playing mode or the second playing mode is a side-loading mode (See, Paragraphs 0007, 0038-0040 and 0049-0052).
Regarding Claim 22, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and Kusunoki further discloses wherein one of the first playing mode or the second playing mode is a normal playing mode (See, Paragraphs 0047 and 0050-0052).
Regarding Claims 23 and 34, the rejection of claims 21 and 33 is incorporated and Kusunoki further discloses wherein both the first and the second playing modes are side-loading modes (See, Paragraphs 0033 and 0051).
Regarding Claims 26 and 37, the rejection of claims 21 and 33 is incorporated and Kusunoki further discloses wherein the user command is one of a plurality of user commands for changing playing modes as inputted by a user of the client device while streaming to the client device (See, Paragraphs 0047 and 0050-0052).
Regarding Claims 27 and 38, the rejection of claims 21 and 33 is incorporated and Kusunoki further discloses transcoding the first portion and the second portion from a first format into a second format, wherein the second format is different than the first format, and wherein the second format is configured to be decoded by the client device (See, Paragraphs 0040, 0049 and 0073).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 24-25, 31-32 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusunoki in view of Hodzic et al. (US 2008/0022343 A1), hereinafter, “Hodzic”.
Regarding Claims 24, 31 and 35, rejections of claims 21, 30 and 33 are incorporated and Kusunoki does not explicitly disclose wherein the side-loading mode comprises side-loading audio transcription data.
Hodzic discloses a side-loading mode comprising audio side-loading transcription data (See, Paragraphs 0062 and 0091).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to side-load, in the system of Kusunoki, audio side-loading transcription data as taught by Hodzic in order to allows the receiver side to reconstruct complete structure of the original stream, and insert padding MPEG TS packets and in place of the filtered out packets. Thus, the top level structure of the MPEG TS stream is preserved, and indexing for the original MPEG TS stream can remain valid and usable (See, Hodzic, Paragraph 0062).
Regarding Claims 25, 32 and 36, rejections of claims 24, 31 and 35 are incorporated and the combination of Kusunoki and Hodzic further discloses wherein the side-loading mode comprises loading the audio transcription data in parallel with playing audiovisual data of the media (See, Hodzic, Paragraphs 0062 and 0091).
Claims 28 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusunoki in view of Fransdonk (US 2005/0066353 A1), hereinafter, “Fransdonk”.
Regarding Claims 28 and 39, the rejection of claims 21 and 33 is incorporated and Kusunoki does not explicitly disclose receiving one or more credentials of the client device; and establishing one or more corresponding trust levels with the client device based at least in part on the received credentials.
Fransdonk discloses receiving one or more credentials of the client device; and establishing one or more corresponding trust levels with the client device based at least in part on the received credentials (See, Paragraphs 0050, 0064 and 0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to receive, in the system of Kusunoki, one or more credentials of the client device; and establishing one or more corresponding trust levels with the client device based at least in part on the received credentials as taught by Fransdonk so that only authorized subscriber with proper rights are provided with streaming services (See, Fransdonk, Paragraph 0068).
Claims 29 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusunoki in view of Hurst (US 2012/0210216 A1), hereinafter, “Hurst”.
Regarding Claims 29 and 40, the rejection of claims 21 and 33 is incorporated and Kusunoki does not explicitly disclose wherein a network connection between the streaming device and the client device comprises at least one wireless network link.
Hurst discloses streaming system wherein a network connection between a streaming device and a client device comprises at least one wireless network link (See, Paragraphs 0003 and 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to stream, in the system of Kusunoki, via a network connection between the streaming device and the client device comprising at least one wireless network link because wireless communication is among various communication networks available for streaming at the time invention was made and furthermore, streaming media content is maintained at a media server that provides the content to the consumer for playback via one or more wired or wireless telecommunications networks. So-called "Internet television", for example, is typically provided as a stream over the Internet or a similar network. Media streams are also used to provide other types of network-based media content, as well as live and pre-recorded broadcast television, content-on-demand and the like (See, Hurst, Paragraph 0003).
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 21-23, 26-30, 33-34 and 37-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-45 of U.S. Patent No. 9,414,231 B2 in view of Kusunoki.
Claims 21-23, 26-30, 33-34 and 37-40 requires following additional limitation: wherein the second playing mode is different than the first playing mode, and wherein at least the first playing mode or the second playing mode is a side-loading mode.
Kusunoki discloses wherein the second playing mode is different than the first playing mode, and wherein at least the first playing mode or the second playing mode is a side-loading mode (See, Paragraphs 0007, 0038-0040 and 0049-0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second playing mode is different than the first playing mode, and wherein at least the first playing mode or the second playing mode is a side-loading mode as taught by Kusunoki for multiplexing the trick play stream into a program stream having the same format as a normal play stream (See, Kusunoki, Paragraph 0040).
Claims 24-25, 31-32 and 35-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-45 of U.S. Patent No. 9,414,231 B2 in view of Kusunoki and further in view of Hodzic.
Claims 24-25, 31-32 and 35-36 requires following additional limitation
wherein the side-loading mode comprises side-loading audio transcription data and wherein the side-loading mode comprises loading the audio transcription data in parallel with playing audiovisual data of the media.
Hodzic discloses a side-loading mode comprising audio side-loading transcription data and wherein the side-loading mode comprises loading the audio transcription data in parallel with playing audiovisual data of the media (See, Paragraphs 0062 and 0091).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to side-load, in the system of Kusunoki, audio side-loading transcription data as taught by Hodzic in order to allows the receiver side to reconstruct complete structure of the original stream, and insert padding MPEG TS packets and in place of the filtered out packets. Thus, the top level structure of the MPEG TS stream is preserved, and indexing for the original MPEG TS stream can remain valid and usable (See, Hodzic, Paragraph 0062).
Claims 21-23, 26-28, 30, 33-34 and 37-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,323,479 B2 in view of Kusunoki.
Claims 21-23, 28, 30, 33-34 and 39 requires following additional limitation: wherein the second playing mode is different than the first playing mode, and wherein at least the first playing mode or the second playing mode is a side-loading mode.
Kusunoki discloses wherein the second playing mode is different than the first playing mode, and wherein at least the first playing mode or the second playing mode is a side-loading mode (See, Paragraphs 0007, 0038-0040 and 0049-0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second playing mode is different than the first playing mode, and wherein at least the first playing mode or the second playing mode is a side-loading mode as taught by Kusunoki for multiplexing the trick play stream into a program stream having the same format as a normal play stream (See, Kusunoki, Paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claims 26 and 37, the rejection of claims 21 and 33 is incorporated and Kusunoki further discloses wherein the user command is one of a plurality of user commands for changing playing modes as inputted by a user of the client device while streaming to the client device (See, Paragraphs 0047 and 0050-0052).
Regarding Claims 27 and 38, the rejection of claims 21 and 33 is incorporated and Kusunoki further discloses transcoding the first portion and the second portion from a first format into a second format, wherein the second format is different than the first format, and wherein the second format is configured to be decoded by the client device (See, Paragraphs 0040, 0049 and 0073).
Claims 24-25, 31-32 and 35-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,323,479 B2 in view of Kusunoki and further in view of Hodzic.
Claims 24-25, 31-32 and 35-36 requires following additional limitation:
wherein the side-loading mode comprises side-loading audio transcription data and wherein the side-loading mode comprises loading the audio transcription data in parallel with playing audiovisual data of the media.
Hodzic discloses a side-loading mode comprising audio side-loading transcription data and wherein the side-loading mode comprises loading the audio transcription data in parallel with playing audiovisual data of the media (See, Paragraphs 0062 and 0091).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to side-load, in the system of Kusunoki, audio side-loading transcription data as taught by Hodzic in order to allows the receiver side to reconstruct complete structure of the original stream, and insert padding MPEG TS packets and in place of the filtered out packets. Thus, the top level structure of the MPEG TS stream is preserved, and indexing for the original MPEG TS stream can remain valid and usable (See, Hodzic, Paragraph 0062).
Claims 29 and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,323,479 B2 in view of Kusunoki and further in view of Hurst.
Claims 29 and 40 requires following additional limitation: wherein a network connection between the streaming device and the client device comprises at least one wireless network link.
Hurst discloses streaming system wherein a network connection between a streaming device and a client device comprises at least one wireless network link (See, Paragraphs 0003 and 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to stream via a network connection between the streaming device and the client device comprising at least one wireless network link because wireless communication is among various communication networks available for streaming at the time invention was made and furthermore, streaming media content is maintained at a media server that provides the content to the consumer for playback via one or more wired or wireless telecommunications networks. So-called "Internet television", for example, is typically provided as a stream over the Internet or a similar network. Media streams are also used to provide other types of network-based media content, as well as live and pre-recorded broadcast television, content-on-demand and the like (See, Hurst, Paragraph 0003).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH PALIWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571)270-3351. 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.
/YOGESH PALIWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights