DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 6 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 6 recites the limitation "the window" in the last limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2018/0027039 A1 (Moorthy et al.).
As to Claim 1, Moorthy et al. anticipate a manifest manipulator (Moorthy et al. – Fig 3A, Content Server 305) operatively connected to a packager (Moorthy et al. – See Figs. 3A and 3B, Content Server’s Schedule Module 305c; and ¶¶ [0048-0051]) that packages sequential chunks of audiovisual content to be streamed (Moorthy et al. – Fig 3B; and ¶¶ [0051-0052]), and to a client device configured to present the content streamed using a sequence of output manifests provided by the manifest manipulator (Moorthy et al. – 3A, Media Devices 320a-320n), the manifest manipulator configured to:
process one or more input manifests for the audiovisual content, the one or more input manifests updated using data from the packager and updated at a first temporal rate (Moorthy et al. disclose the server receiving messages from playback clients 320a-N regarding the payback clients’ use of playback commands such as play, pause, fast-forward, trick play, etc.; and the server adjusting the chunk rate from a normal rate {first temporal rate} to a faster than real-time playback speed {second temporal rate} to maximize bandwidth and send rate based on servicing several playback devices – Figs. 3A and 3B and ¶¶ [0082-0085]);
the one or more input manifests processed to sequentially provide a plurality of output manifests paced to the client device at a second temporal rate independent from the first temporal rate (Moorthy et al. disclose the server receiving messages from playback clients 320a-N regarding the payback clients’ use of playback commands such as play, pause, fast-forward, trick play, etc.; and the server adjusting the chunk rate from a normal rate {first temporal rate} to a faster than real-time playback speed {second temporal rate} to maximize bandwidth and send rate based on servicing several playback devices – Figs. 3A and 3B and ¶¶ [0082-0085]).
As to Claim 2, Moorthy et al. anticipate the manifest manipulator of claim 1
where at least one of the first temporal rate and the second temporal rate is determined using feedback from the client device (Moorthy et al. disclose the server receiving messages from playback clients 320a-N regarding the payback clients’ use of playback commands such as play, pause, fast-forward, trick play, etc.; and the server adjusting the chunk rate from a normal rate {first temporal rate} to a faster than real-time playback speed {second temporal rate} to maximize bandwidth and send rate based on servicing several playback devices – Figs. 3A and 3B and ¶¶ [0082-0085]).
As to Claim 3, Moorthy et al. anticipate the manifest manipulator of claim 2
where the feedback includes a play position (Moorthy et al. disclose the server receiving messages from playback clients 320a-N regarding the payback clients’ use of playback commands such as play, pause, fast-forward, trick play [play position}, etc.; and the server adjusting the chunk rate from a normal rate {first temporal rate} to a faster than real-time playback speed {second temporal rate} to maximize bandwidth and send rate based on servicing several playback devices – Figs. 3A and 3B and ¶¶ [0082-0085]).
As to Claim 4, Moorthy et al. anticipate the manifest manipulator of claim 2
where the feedback is used to determine at least one of a chunk at the head of an output manifest and a chunk at a tail of the output manifest (***).
As to Claim 5, Moorthy et al. anticipate the manifest manipulator of claim 1
where the output manifest is at least one of delayed, trimmed or reduced relative to the input manifest (Moorthy et al. disclose the server receiving messages from playback clients 320a-N regarding the payback clients’ use of playback commands such as play, pause, fast-forward, trick play, etc.; and the server adjusting the chunk rate from a normal rate {first temporal rate} to a faster than real-time playback speed {second temporal rate} or slower {trimmed}, or none at all, to maximize bandwidth and send rate based on servicing several playback devices – Figs. 3A and 3B and ¶¶ [0082-0085]).
As to Claim 6, Moorthy et al. anticipate a manifest manipulator (Moorthy et al. – Fig 3A, Content Server 305) operatively connected to a packager (Moorthy et al. – See Figs. 3A and 3B, Content Server’s Schedule Module 305c; and ¶¶ [0048-0051] that packages sequential chunks of audiovisual content to be streamed, and to a client device configured to present the content streamed using a sequence of output manifests provided by the manifest manipulator (Moorthy et al. – 3A, Media Devices 320a-320n), the manifest manipulator configured to:
update at least one input manifest for the audiovisual content using information received from the packager; receive feedback from the client device related to the manner in which the audiovisual content is currently being presented (Moorthy et al. disclose the server receiving messages from playback clients 320a-N regarding the payback clients’ use of playback commands such as play, pause, fast-forward, trick play, etc.; and the server adjusting the chunk rate from a normal rate {first temporal rate} to a faster than real-time playback speed {second temporal rate} to maximize bandwidth and send rate based on servicing several playback devices – Figs. 3A and 3B and ¶¶ [0082-0085]); and
using the feedback and updated at least one input manifest to determine at least one parameter of the window of a next sequential output manifest provided to the client device (Moorthy et al. disclose the server receiving messages from playback clients 320a-N regarding the payback clients’ use of playback commands such as play, pause, fast-forward, trick play, etc.; and the server adjusting the chunk rate from a normal rate {first temporal rate} to a faster than real-time playback speed {second temporal rate} to maximize bandwidth and send rate based on servicing several playback devices – Figs. 3A and 3B and ¶¶ [0082-0085]).
As to Claim 7, Moorthy et al. anticipate the manifest manipulator of claim 6
where the next sequential output manifest is delayed relative to a current rate at which the input manifest is updated (Moorthy et al. disclose the server receiving messages from playback clients 320a-N regarding the payback clients’ use of playback commands such as play, pause, fast-forward, trick play, etc.; and the server adjusting the chunk rate from a normal rate {first temporal rate} to a faster than real-time playback speed {second temporal rate} or slower, or none at all, to maximize bandwidth and send rate based on servicing several playback devices – Figs. 3A and 3B and ¶¶ [0082-0085]).
As to Claim 8, Moorthy et al. anticipate the manifest manipulator of claim 6
where the next sequential output manifest is trimmed relative to a currently updated input manifest (Moorthy et al. disclose the server receiving messages from playback clients 320a-N regarding the payback clients’ use of playback commands such as play, pause, fast-forward, trick play, etc.; and the server adjusting the chunk rate from a normal rate {first temporal rate} to a faster than real-time playback speed {second temporal rate} or slower {trimmed}, or none at all, to maximize bandwidth and send rate based on servicing several playback devices – Figs. 3A and 3B and ¶¶ [0082-0085]).
As to Claim 9, Moorthy et al. anticipate the manifest manipulator of claim 6
where the feedback from the client device is used to determine at least one of a chunk at the head of an output manifest and a chunk at a tail of the output manifest (Moorthy et al. - Fig. 3B and ¶¶ [0051-0055]).
As to Claim 10, Moorthy et al. anticipate the manifest manipulator of claim 6
where the feedback is used by the manifest manipulator to control the rate at which the input manifest is updated (Moorthy et al. disclose the server receiving messages from playback clients 320a-N regarding the payback clients’ use of playback commands such as play, pause, fast-forward, trick play, etc.; and the server adjusting the chunk rate from a normal rate {first temporal rate} to a faster than real-time playback speed {second temporal rate} or slower {trimmed}, or none at all, to maximize bandwidth and send rate based on servicing several playback devices – Figs. 3A and 3B and ¶¶ [0082-0085]).
As to Claim 11, Moorthy et al. anticipate a method for manipulating an output manifest provided to a client device configured to present audiovisual content streamed as a sequence of content chunks using the output manifest (Moorthy et al. – ¶ [0006] and abstract), the method comprising:
receiving data from a packager defining a sequence of updated input manifests for the sequence of content chunks of the audiovisual content (Moorthy et al. disclose the server receiving messages from playback clients 320a-N regarding the payback clients’ use of playback commands such as play, pause, fast-forward, trick play, etc.; and the server adjusting the chunk rate from a normal rate {first temporal rate} to a faster than real-time playback speed {second temporal rate} to maximize bandwidth and send rate based on servicing several playback devices – Figs. 3A and 3B and ¶¶ [0082-0085]);
receive feedback from the client device related to the manner in which the audiovisual content is currently being presented (Moorthy et al. disclose the server receiving messages from playback clients 320a-N regarding the payback clients’ use of playback commands such as play, pause, fast-forward, trick play, etc.; and the server adjusting the chunk rate from a normal rate {first temporal rate} to a faster than real-time playback speed {second temporal rate} to maximize bandwidth and send rate based on servicing several playback devices – Figs. 3A and 3B and ¶¶ [0082-0085]); and
using the feedback and a currently updated one of the sequence of updated input manifests to determine at least one parameter of a window of a next sequential output manifest provided to the client device (Moorthy et al. disclose the server receiving messages from playback clients 320a-N regarding the payback clients’ use of playback commands such as play, pause, fast-forward, trick play, etc.; and the server adjusting the chunk rate from a normal rate {first temporal rate} to a faster than real-time playback speed {second temporal rate} to maximize bandwidth and send rate based on servicing several playback devices – Figs. 3A and 3B and ¶¶ [0082-0085]).
As to Claim 12, Moorthy et al. anticipate the method of claim 11
where a next sequential output manifest is delayed relative to a current rate at which the input manifest is updated (Moorthy et al. disclose the server receiving messages from playback clients 320a-N regarding the payback clients’ use of playback commands such as play, pause, fast-forward, trick play, etc.; and the server adjusting the chunk rate from a normal rate {first temporal rate} to a faster than real-time playback speed {second temporal rate} or slower, or none at all, to maximize bandwidth and send rate based on servicing several playback devices – Figs. 3A and 3B and ¶¶ [0082-0085]).
As to Claim 13, Moorthy et al. anticipate the method of claim 11
where a next sequential output manifest is trimmed relative to a currently updated input manifest (Moorthy et al. disclose the server receiving messages from playback clients 320a-N regarding the payback clients’ use of playback commands such as play, pause, fast-forward, trick play, etc.; and the server adjusting the chunk rate from a normal rate {first temporal rate} to a faster than real-time playback speed {second temporal rate} or slower {trimmed}, or none at all, to maximize bandwidth and send rate based on servicing several playback devices – Figs. 3A and 3B and ¶¶ [0082-0085]).
As to Claim 14, Moorthy et al. anticipate the method of claim 11
where the feedback from the client device is used to determine at least one of a chunk at the head of the output manifest and a chunk at a tail of the output manifest (Moorthy et al. - Fig. 3B and ¶¶ [0051-0055]).
As to Claim 15, Moorthy et al. anticipate the method of claim 11
where the feedback is used by the manifest manipulator to control the rate at which the input manifest is updated (Moorthy et al. disclose the server receiving messages from playback clients 320a-N regarding the payback clients’ use of playback commands such as play, pause, fast-forward, trick play, etc.; and the server adjusting the chunk rate from a normal rate {first temporal rate} to a faster than real-time playback speed {second temporal rate} or slower {trimmed}, or none at all, to maximize bandwidth and send rate based on servicing several playback devices – Figs. 3A and 3B and ¶¶ [0082-0085]).
Interview Practice
USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR)
The USPTO AIR is a new optional online interview scheduling tool that allows Applicants to request an interview with an Examiner for their pending patent application.
The USPTO AIR form is available on our website at: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
By submitting this type of interview request, the pending patent application will be in compliance with the written authorization requirement for Internet communication in accordance with MPEP §502.03. This authorization will be in effect until the Applicant provides a written withdrawal of authorization to the Examiner of record.
If you have questions or need assistance with the USPTO AIR form or with interview practice at the USPTO, please contact an Interview Specialist at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice/interview-specialist or send an email to ExaminerInterviewPractice@USPTO.GOV.
Examiner Notes:
A) Prior to conducting any interview (whether using AIR or not), Applicant(s) must submit an agenda including the proposed date and time, all arguments in writing, and proposed claim amendments (if applicable). Any proposed amendments or arguments not presented in the agenda will only be heard by the Examiner, but because the Examiner will not have heard them in advance and been given an equitable opportunity to consider them, no decision will be rendered, nor agreement made. ALL AGENDAS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE EXAMINER AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF THE INTERVIEW, OR THE PREVIOUS BUSINESS DAY, WHICHEVER IS LONGER, or the interview may have to be rescheduled.
B) After-final interviews may be granted, but the agenda must be in compliance with MPEP 713.09 which limits the interview only to discussions of proposed amendments, or clarification for appeal. After-final interviews are not to be conducted for the purpose of rehashing previously made arguments. After seeing the agenda, Examiner will decide whether to grant or deny the interview.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G KEEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-5007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, John A Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RICHARD G KEEHN/
