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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are held allowable since they depend from allowable dependent claims 4, 11 and 18, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 15-20 sets forth “one or more computer-readable storage media” However, the specification as originally filed does not explicitly define the computer readable storage medium various medium examples, wherein one of the examiner comprises a propagated signal (See paragraph [0059]).
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage media (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is absent an explicit definition or is silent. See MPEP 2111.01.
When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The Examiner respectfully notes that a claim drawn to a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. For additional information, please see the Patents’ Official Gazette notice published February 23, 2010 (1351 OG 212).
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 (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 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, 6, 8-10, 13, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chundi et al. (Pub No US 2025/0390275) in view of Foerster et al. (Pub No US 2019/0268632). Hereinafter, referenced as Chundi and Foerster, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Chundi discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a device (e.g. tablet 500) of a user and from a streaming service (e.g. streaming server 504), a predicted playback speed (e.g. manifest file 510) of a video to be played on the device (Paragraphs [0038] [0039] table 1 figures 4 and 5; transmitting the generated manifest file comprising identified playback speed 508 to the tablet 500, wherein the manifest file is generated based on user profile 408),
wherein the predicted playback speed is determined based on a plurality of video playback speeds of a plurality of videos played by the user (Paragraphs [0038] [0039] figures 4 and 5; user profile 408 keeps track of past user actions such as what playback speed the user usually selects for a certain type of content, and the playback speed may be identified based on the past user actions when watching similar content items),
determining, by the device and based on the predicted playback speed, a version of the video to be provided to the device (Paragraphs [0038] [0039] table 1 figures 4 and 5; determine speed version of the content segment based on the generated manifest file 510);
and sending, by the device (e.g. tablet 500) and to the streaming service (e.g. streaming server 504), a request to stream the version of the video (Paragraphs [0039] [0040] figure 5; tablet 500 requests segments based on the identified playback speeds on the manifest file).
However, it is noted that Chundi is silent to explicitly disclose a probability of the predicted playback speed, and the probability of the predicted playback speed comprises a probability that the user will change a playback speed of the video from a first playback speed to the predicted playback speed during a playback of the video.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Foerster discloses a probability of the predicted playback speed, and the probability of the predicted playback speed comprises a probability that the user will change a playback speed of the video from a first playback speed to the predicted playback speed during a playback of the video (Paragraphs [0061] [0062] [0065] [0139] figures 3D; extracting a level of confidence that a portion of the media will be rendered as the adjusted playback 346).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chundi by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Foerster, for the predictable result of automatically rendering content at the adjusted playback speed based on the confidence that the user will in reality enjoy viewing the content at the determined adjusted playback speed (Foerster – paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 2, Chundi and Foerster disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1; moreover, Chundi discloses that the method further comprises: before receiving, by the device and from the streaming service, the predicted playback speed, generating, by the streaming service and based on features of the plurality of videos played by the user and a plurality of characteristics of the video, the predicted playback speed of the video (Paragraphs [0038] [0039] figures 4 and 5; user profile 408 keeps track of past user actions such as what playback speed the user usually selects for a certain type of content, and the playback speed may be identified based on the past user actions when watching similar content items).
Regarding claim 3, Chundi and Foerster disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1; moreover, Chundi discloses that the plurality of characteristics of the video comprises a video content category of the video (Paragraph [0040]; genre or media playback speeds) or a video duration of the video (Paragraphs [0038] [0039] figures 4 and 5; user profile 408 keeps track of past user actions such as what playback speed the user usually selects for a certain type of content, and the playback speed may be identified based on the past user actions when watching similar content items).
Regarding claim 6, Chundi and Foerster disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1; moreover, Chundi discloses that the method further comprises: after sending the request to the streaming service to stream the version of the video, determining, based on the predicted playback speed of the video, a duration of a portion of the video to be cached in a buffer of the device (Paragraph [0046] figure 10; determine whether to increase the buffer size in order to enable the buffer to hold a threshold time of the media content item).
Regarding claims 8-10 and 13, Chundi and Foerster disclose all the limitations of claims 8-10; therefore, claims 8-10 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 1-3 and 6, respectively.
Regarding claims 15-17 and 20, Chundi and Foerster disclose all the limitations of claims 15-17 and 20; therefore, claims 15-17 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 1-3 and 6, respectively.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chundi and Foerster further in view of Bentaled et al. (Patent No US 11,621,985). Hereinafter, referenced as Bentaled.
Regarding claim 7, Chundi and Foerster disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1; moreover, Chundi discloses that the version of the video corresponds to a resolution of the video (Paragraphs [0038] [0039] table 1 figures 4 and 5; segments a different quality, e.g. 360p, 720p).
However, it is noted that Chundi and Foerster are silent to explicitly disclose that the version of the video corresponds to a bitrate of the video.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Bentaled discloses that the version of the video corresponds to a bitrate of the video (Col. 3 lines 30-47, col. 6 lines 5-32; each segment in a manifest for a video content may be available in various representations, e.g. resolution, bitrates, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chundi and Foerster by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Bentaled, for the predictable result of providing a smooth playback and the best video quality available at a given period of time based on network conditions.
Regarding claim 14, Chundi, Foerster and Bentaled disclose all the limitations of claim 14; therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm EST..
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights