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 .
This action is in response to application 19/236,361 filed 6/12/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 9, 15 of instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claims 1, 8, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12356034 and independent claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11910045 in view of the corresponding dependent claims identified in the table below.
The instant claims are not patentably distinct from parented claims because they recite complementary client-side and server-side aspects of the same content-enhancement technique involving transmission and application of a quantity of data configured for addition to a first version of a content segment to generate a higher-bitrate second version of the content segment.
Any differences between the instant claims and the patented claims constitute only obvious variations of the same inventive concept and do not render the instant claims patentably distinct.
Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 15 are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 8, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12356034 and claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11910045 for reasons set forth in the table below.
Instant Application 19/236,361
Parent Pat 12,356,034
Not Patentably Distinct
Independent Claims 1, 9, 15:
receiving, by a user device, a first version of a content segment comprising content encoded at a first bit rate;
sending a request for a quantity of data associated with the content segment;
generating, based on an addition of the quantity of data to the first version of the content segment, a second version of the content segment, wherein the content of the second version of the content segment is encoded at a second bit rate higher than the first bit rate;
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2, 10, 16
Claims 3, 11, 17
Claims 4, 12, 18
Claim 5
Claims 6, 13, 19
Claims 7, 14, 20
Claim 8
Independent Claims 1, 8, 15:
sending, to a user device, a first version of a content segment, wherein the first version of the content segment comprises content encoded at a first bit rate;
receiving, from the user device, a request associated with the content segment, wherein the request is based on a change in a network condition;
sending, to the user device and based on the request, a quantity of data configured for addition to the first version of the content segment to generate a second version of the content segment, wherein the content of the second version of the content segment is encoded at a second bit rate higher than the first bit rate;
Claims:
Claims 6, 13, 20
Claims 1, 8, 15
Claims 5, 12, 19
Claims 1, 8, 15
Claims 2, 9, 16
Claims 1, 8, 15
Claims 7, 14, 21
Analysis:
These limitations recite opposite sides of the same content delivery operation. The parent transmits the first version of the content segment while the instant claim receives the same content segment at the user device.
These limitations recite opposite sides of the same request transaction. The parent claim receives the request transmitted by the user device, while the instant claim recites transmitting the request. The additional network-condition limitation merely narrows the circumstances under which the request is received and does not render the claims patentably distinct.
These limitations recite complementary aspects of the same inventive concept. The parent claim sends the quantity of data configured for addition to the first version of the content segment, while the instant claim receives and applies the same quantity of data to generate the second version. Both claims are directed to generating a higher-bitrate second version through addition of the quantity of data to the first version and therefore are not patentably distinct.
Analysis:
Both recite that the second version is associated with a higher quality that the first version. Same functionality.
Both recite that the request is based on a change in a network condition. The parent independent claims expressly require a request based on a change in network condition and therefore recite the same functionality.
The parent claims specify bandwidth, throughput, and data-rate changes as examples of the network condition that triggers the request. Both claims are directed to the same network-conditions-triggering functionality.
Recites receiving a request and sending a quantity of data responsive to the request. Receipt and use of the quantity of data by the user device is inherent in the content-enhancement operation and therefore does not render the claims patentably distinct.
Both recite outputting the second version at an output time associated with the content segment. Same functionality.
Recites sending a quantity of data configured for addition to the first version to generate the higher-bitrate second version. The instant claims further define that quantity of data as representing the difference between first-bitrate and second-bitrate data amounts. This merely specifies how the quantity of data is determined and does not materially alter the underlying content-enhancement technique. Thus, instant claims 7, 14, and 20 merely define that quantity as the difference between data associated with the two bitrates and therefore constitute an obvious implementation detail rather that a patentably distinct invention.
Identical content-type limitations. Same functionality.
Instant Application 19/236,361
Parent Pat 11,910,045
Not Patentably Distinct
Independent Claims 1, 9, 15:
receiving, by a user device, a first version of a content segment comprising content encoded at a first bit rate;
sending a request for a quantity of data associated with the content segment;
generating, based on an addition of the quantity of data to the first version of the content segment, a second version of the content segment, wherein the content of the second version of the content segment is encoded at a second bit rate higher than the first bit rate;
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2, 10, 16
Claims 3, 11, 17
Claims 4, 12, 18
Claim 5
Claims 6, 13, 19
Claims 7, 14, 20
Claim 8
Independent Claims 1, 10:
receiving a first version of a content segment, wherein the first version of the content
segment comprises content encoded at a first bit rate;
based on a change in a network condition, sending a request for a quantity of data
associated with the content segment;
determining a second version of the content segment, wherein the second version of the
content segment comprises an addition of the quantity of data to the first version of the content
segment, and wherein the content of the second version of the content segment is encoded at a
second bit rate higher than the first bit rate;
causing output, at an output time associated with the content segment, of the second
version of the content segment.
Dependent Claims:
Claim 13
Claim 13
Claims 1, 10
Claim 14
Claim 15
Claim 16
Claim 9
Analysis:
These limitations recite the same content-receiving operation. Both claims require receiving a first version of a content segment comprising content encoded at a first bitrate. The instant claim merely specifies that the receiving is performed by a user device and therefore does not render the claims patentably distinct.
These limitations recite the same request operation. Both claims require sending a request for a quantity of data associated with the content segment. The additional network-condition limitation merely narrows the circumstances under which the request is sent in the parent claim. The instant claim broadly encompasses such requests and therefore does not define patentably distinct subject matter.
These limitations recite the same content-enhancement technique. The parent claim determines a second version of the content segment comprising an addition of the quantity of data to the first version of the content segment, while the instant claim generates the second version based on an addition of the quantity of data to the first version of the content segment. Both claims are directed to generating a higher-bitrate second version through addition of the quantity of data to the first version and therefore are not patentably distinct.
The parent claim further recites causing output of the generated second version of the content segment. This limitation merely recites use of the second version after it has been generated and does not render the claimed invention patentably distinct from the instant claims, which already recite generating the same higher-bitrate second version.
Analysis:
Both recite determining that a difference between a current output time and the output time associated with the content segment satisfies a threshold before requesting/sending additional data Same functionality.
Instant claims further specify that the current output time is ahead of the output time associated with the current segment. This merely defines one implementation of the threshold-based timing determination recited in parent claim 13 and does not render the claims patentably distinct.
Parent claims 1 and 10 recite sending a request for a quantity of data and generating a second version using that quantity of data. Receiving and using the requested quantity of data is a necessary aspect of the same content-enhancement operation and therefore does not render the claims patentably distinct.
Both recite storing the first version of the content segment in memory for output. Same functionality.
Both recite that the memory comprises a content buffer. Identical functionality.
Both recite that the network-condition change comprises at least one of a change in bandwidth, throughput, or data rate. Same functionality.
Both claims specify characteristics of the content being processed. Parent claim 9 recites content types associated with the content segment, while instant claim 8 recites particular examples of content types. The instant claim merely specifies particular content categories within the same content-processing framework and therefore does not render the claims patentable distinct.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art of record, including the references cited in the Information Disclosure Statement (8/4/2025) and those considered during examination of the related parent applications, fails to teach or suggest the allowable subject matter previously identified in connection with U.S. Patent Nos. 11,910, 045 and 12,356,034. In particular, the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest generating a higher-bitrate second version of content segment through transmission and application of a quantity of data configured for addition to a first version of the content segment, as recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 15.
A current search finds EP 2408205 A1 (Van Leekwijck et al.), which discloses adaptive streaming and scalable video delivery in response to changing network conditions. For example, the client may request video segments of different qualities depending upon available bandwidth and buffer conditions [para(s).0005-0006, 0038-0040]. EP 2408205 A1 further teaches delivery of base layers and enhancement layers of scalable encoded video files, including requesting and receiving such layers over separate connections [para(s).0041-0049]. However, EP 2408205 A1 does not teach or suggest the limitations recited in the instant application independent claims 1, 9, and 15 “generating, based on an addition of the quantity of data to the first version of the content segment, a second version of the content segment, wherein the content of the second version of the content segment is encoded at a second bit rate higher than the first bit rate.” The foregoing deficiency is consistent with the basis for allowance previously identified during examination of the related parent applications U.S. Patent Nos. 11,910, 045 and 12,356,034. Rather, EP 2408205 A1 teaches requesting and receiving separate quality versions, based layers, and enhancement layers of scalable encoded video files, but does not teach generating a second version of a content segment based on an addition of the requested quantity of data to the first version of the content segment.”
Accordingly, claims 1-20 appear to be allowable over EP 2408205 A1 as well as the prior art presently of record. However, claims 1-20 remain subject to the nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is overcome, for example by the filing of an appropriate terminal disclaimer, the claims would be in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Luby et al., (US 9,191,151) – Discloses scalable blocks/layers, i.e., requesting a block or blocks from a different representation of the content, such as one that uses less bandwidth per unit of playout time (col.47 lines 64-66). Further discloses scalable segment map contains the locations of the different layers in the segment such that the client can access the parts of the segments accordingly and extract the layers. In another embodiment, the media data in the segment is ordered such that the quality of the segment is increasing while downloading the data gradually from the beginning of the segment. In another embodiment, the gradual increase of the quality is applied for each block or fragment contained in the segment, such that the fragment requests can be done to address the scalable approach (col.48 lines 25-35). Luby fails to teach that the client already has a first complete lower-bitrate content segment in a buffer, then later requests only difference data and adds it to that stored first segment to generate a second higher-bitrate version.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL OCAK whose telephone number is (571) 272-2774. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 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.
/ADIL OCAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights