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 .
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.
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, 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, 4-8, 11-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurst (US 2012/0210216 A1) in view of Biderman et al. (Biderman) (US 2015/0016804 A1).
As to claim 1, while Hurst discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a video playback device and during output of segmented video content, a request to start a trick play (user trickplay input regarding playback rate or direction; paragraph 36, 45, 51-53);
determining a video segment of segmented trick play video content at which to begin the trick play (metadata mapping presentation times of different objects to select next corresponding object; Fig. 1, paragraph 18-26, 31, 45-46, 48, 55), wherein at least one segment, of one or more segments of the segmented trick play video content, omits at least one video frame of the video content between video frames of the video content (see Fig. 1, trick play objects 134, 136, omitting frames from the standard stream; paragraph 17-19); and
causing playback of the segmented trick play video content beginning with the determined video segment (sequential playback of the determined object from the trickplay stream to maintain continuity; paragraph 26-27, 46, 51-55), they fail to specifically disclose omitting at least one video frame of the video content between sequences of consecutive video frames of the video content.
In an analogous art, Biderman discloses a system providing video trick-play (Fig. 2-3; paragraph 22, 24, 29-30) wherein at least one segment, of one or more segments of segmented trick play video content (paragraph 45, 53), omits at least one video frame of the video content between video frames of video content (trickplay using snippets of multiple consecutive frame before skipping frames; Fig. 5A-C; paragraph 33-37, 53-54) so as to provide a pleasant experience and make it easier for the viewer to recognize the content (paragraph 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hurst’s system to include omitting at least one video frame of the video content between sequences of consecutive video frames of the video content, as taught in combination with Biderman, for the benefit of providing a pleasant experience and make it easier for the viewer to recognize the content (paragraph 14).
As to claim 8, while Hurst discloses a computing device (Fig. 2, client device, 204) comprising:
one or more processors (paragraph 29); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the computing device (paragraph 29) to:
receive, during output of segmented trick play video content, a request to start a trick play (user input regarding playback rate or direction; paragraph 36, 45, 51-53);
determine a video segment of segmented trick play video content at which to begin the trick play (metadata mapping presentation times of different objects to select next corresponding object; Fig. 1, paragraph 18-26, 31, 45-46, 48, 55), wherein at least one segment, of one or more segments of the segmented trick play video content, omits at least one video frame of the video content between video frames of the video content (see Fig. 1, trick play objects 134, 136, omitting frames from the standard stream; paragraph 17-19); and
cause playback of the segmented trick play video content beginning with the determined video segment (sequential playback of the determined object from the trickplay stream to maintain continuity; paragraph 26-27, 46, 51-55), they fail to specifically disclose omitting at least one video frame of the video content between sequences of consecutive video frames of the video content.
In an analogous art, Biderman discloses a system providing video trick-play (Fig. 2-3; paragraph 22, 24, 29-30) wherein at least one segment, of one or more segments of segmented trick play video content (paragraph 45, 53), omits at least one video frame of the video content between video frames of video content (trickplay using snippets of multiple consecutive frame before skipping frames; Fig. 5A-C; paragraph 33-37, 53-54) so as to provide a pleasant experience and make it easier for the viewer to recognize the content (paragraph 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hurst’s system to include omitting at least one video frame of the video content between sequences of consecutive video frames of the video content, as taught in combination with Biderman, for the benefit of providing a pleasant experience and make it easier for the viewer to recognize the content (paragraph 14).
As to claim 15, while Hurst discloses a non-transitory computing readable medium comprising instructions, that when executed, configure a computing device (Fig. 2, client device, 204; paragraph 29) to:
receive, during output of segmented trick play video content, a request to start a trick play (user input regarding playback rate or direction; paragraph 36, 45, 51-53);
determine a video segment of segmented trick play video content at which to begin the trick play (metadata mapping presentation times of different objects to select next corresponding object; Fig. 1, paragraph 18-26, 31, 45-46, 48, 55), wherein at least one segment, of one or more segments of the segmented trick play video content, omits at least one video frame of the video content between video frames of the video content (see Fig. 1, trick play objects 134, 136, omitting frames from the standard stream; paragraph 17-19); and
cause playback of the segmented trick play video content beginning with the determined video segment (sequential playback of the determined object from the trickplay stream to maintain continuity; paragraph 26-27, 46, 51-55), they fail to specifically disclose omitting at least one video frame of the video content between sequences of consecutive video frames of the video content.
In an analogous art, Biderman discloses a system providing video trick-play (Fig. 2-3; paragraph 22, 24, 29-30) wherein at least one segment, of one or more segments of segmented trick play video content (paragraph 45, 53), omits at least one video frame of the video content between video frames of video content (trickplay using snippets of multiple consecutive frame before skipping frames; Fig. 5A-C; paragraph 33-37, 53-54) so as to provide a pleasant experience and make it easier for the viewer to recognize the content (paragraph 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hurst’s system to include omitting at least one video frame of the video content between sequences of consecutive video frames of the video content, as taught in combination with Biderman, for the benefit of providing a pleasant experience and make it easier for the viewer to recognize the content (paragraph 14).
As to claim 4, 11, 18 Hurst and Biderman disclose wherein:
the segmented video content comprises a set of video frames (normal playback rate objects and video frames; see Hurst at Fig. 1-2; paragraph 18-19, 27, 30-31); and
the segmented trick play video content comprises a subset of the set of video frames of the segmented video content (trickplay segments including less frames based upon the particular trickplay playback rate; see Hurst at Fig. 1; paragraph 18-19 and Biderman at Fig. 5A-C; paragraph 33-37, 53-54).
As to claim 5, 12, 19, Hurst and Biderman disclose wherein:
the segmented video content comprises first segmented trick play video content associated with a first playback rate (trickplay segments including frames based upon the particular trickplay playback rate; see Hurst at Fig. 1; paragraph 18-19 and Biderman at paragraph 33-37); and
the segmented trick play video content comprises second segmented trick play video content associated with a second playback rate that is different than the first playback rate (wherein any number of different trickplay streams may be available at different playback rates; see Hurst at Fig. 1; paragraph 18-19, 22, 39, 43, 56-57 and Biderman at paragraph 33-37); and
As to claim 6, 13, Hurst and Biderman disclose wherein determining the video segment of segmented trick play video content at which to begin the trick play further comprises:
querying, based on a determination of a trick play playback time, a manifest file to determine the video segment of segmented trick play video content at which to begin the trick play (requesting object based upon data table; see Hurst at paragraph 25, 35-36, 48).
As to claim 7, 14, Hurst and Biderman disclose
receiving, by the video playback device from a server prior to the output of segmented video content, the manifest file (see Hurst at paragraph 25, 35-36, 48).
As to claim 20, Hurst and Biderman disclose wherein the instructions, when executed, configured the video playback device to:
receive, from a server, prior to the output of segmented video content, a manifest file (see Hurst at paragraph 25, 35-36, 48); and
determine the video segment of segmented trick play video content at which to begin the trick play by querying, based on a determination of a trick play playback time, the manifest file to determine the video segment of segmented trick play video content at which to begin the trick play (requesting object based upon data table; see Hurst at paragraph 25, 35-36, 48).
Claims 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurst and Biderman and further in view of Boccon-Gibod et al. (Boccon-Gibod) (6,965,724) (of record).
As to claims 2, 9, 16, while Hurst and Biderman disclose wherein the trick play playback time is determined relative to the relative to the relative presentation time of the segments (see Biderman at paragraph 24-26, 48), he fails to specifically disclose wherein the trick play playback time is determined by dividing the playback time by a playback rate of the trick play.
In an analogous art, Boccon-Gibod discloses a system for switching between different speed normal and trick-play streams (column 2, lines 26-59) which will identify the ideal trick-play playback time and frame by dividing the playback time by a playback rate of the trick play (playback position in the normal stream is divided by the playback rate of the new trickplay stream to identify the corresponding location in the trickplay stream; Fig. 2, column 4, line 1-column 5, line 38) so as to achieve efficient switching between the different streams (column 5, lines 32-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hurst and Biderman’s system to include wherein the trick play playback time is determined at least by dividing the playback time by a playback rate of the trick play, as taught in combination with Boccon-Gibod, for the benefit of efficient switching between the different streams.
As to claim 4, 10, 17, Hurst, Biderman and Boccon-Gibod disclose wherein:
the trick play is a rewind trick play (see Hurst at paragraph 17-22, 44, 53 and Boccon-Gibod at column 2, line 32-36);
video frames of the segmented trick play video content are arranged in reverse order relative to the segmented video content (see Hurst at Fig. 1, paragraph 17-18, 22),
the trick play playback time is further determined by subtracting, from an ending playback time of the segmented trick play video content, a result obtained by the dividing (adding the result from a forward trickplay and subtracting the result from a reverse or negative speed trickplay; see Boccon-Gibod at column 5, lines 8, 27-28, column 7, line 44).
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,382. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the narrower patented claims fully disclose and encompass the claimed subject matter of the instant application.
For example,
Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,382.
Claim 1 of the instant application:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a video playback device and during output of segmented video content, a request to start a trick play;
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,382:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a video playback device and during output of segmented video content, a request to start a trick play;
based on a determination of a trick play playback time that corresponds to a playback time associated with a video frame of the segmented video content that is outputted during receipt of the request to start the trick play,
determining a video segment of segmented trick play video content at which to begin the trick play, wherein at least one segment, of one or more segments of the segmented trick play video content, omits at least one video frame of the video content between sequences of consecutive video frames of the video content;
determining a video segment of segmented trick play video content at which to begin the trick play, wherein at least one segment, of one or more segments of the segmented trick play video content, omits at least one video frame of the video content between one or more sequences of consecutive video frames of the video content; and
causing playback of the segmented trick play video content beginning with the determined video segment.
causing playback of the segmented trick play video content beginning with the determined video segment.
Claims 2-20 correspond to the limitations included within claims 2-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,382.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,838,58 in view of Biderman.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,838,588 corresponds to claims 1, 8, 15, of the instant application and includes every limitation except omitting at least one video frame of the video content between sequences of consecutive video frames of the video content.
In an analogous art, Biderman discloses a system providing video trick-play (Fig. 2-3; paragraph 22, 24, 29-30) wherein at least one segment, of one or more segments of segmented trick play video content (paragraph 45, 53), omits at least one video frame of the video content between video frames of video content (trickplay using snippets of multiple consecutive frame before skipping frames; Fig. 5A-C; paragraph 33-37, 53-54) so as to provide a pleasant experience and make it easier for the viewer to recognize the content (paragraph 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,838,588 to include omitting at least one video frame of the video content between sequences of consecutive video frames of the video content, as taught in combination with Biderman, for the benefit of providing a pleasant experience and make it easier for the viewer to recognize the content (paragraph 14).
Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-60, of the instant application correspond to claims 2-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,838,588.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James R Sheleheda whose telephone number is (571)272-7357. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm CST.
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.
/James R Sheleheda/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights