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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Newman does not disclose sending, to a plurality of content origin server devices, an indication of the request for the content item. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Newman discloses sending, to a plurality of content origin server devices, an indication of the request for the content item. For example, Newman discloses a user interface that includes media item metadata showing which representations/versions of a media item are available at different content providers. A user may select one of the versions of the media item, and a request for the selected version is sent to the content provider storing the selected version of the media item. The user can repeat the selection and another request is sent to another provider. The claim doesn’t require that a single request is received from the user and the same single request is sent to the different providers at the same time.
For at least the above reasons, the present claimed invention is not patentable over the cited reference(s).
Claim 12 has been amended and the Double Patenting rejection is maintained until indication of allowable subject matter.
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 §§ 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/patent/patents-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 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,841.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, 17-19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Newman (US 2018/0063591).
Regarding claim 1, Newman discloses a method comprising:
receiving, from a user device, a request for a content item (sending a request for a media item; see at least paragraph 0029);
sending, to a plurality of content origin server devices, an indication of the request for the content item (in terms of receiving a selection of presented media item provided by content provider; see at least paragraphs 0062-0063); and
sending, to the user device and based on the at least one of the first quality score associated with a copy of the content item or a recording score associated with the copy of the content item, a portion of the copy of the content item (selecting a content provider that provides the media item to the user is based on a criterion such as quality; see at least paragraphs 0033-0034, 0044).
Regarding claim 5, Newman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the portion of the first copy of the content item is a first portion of the first copy of the content item, further comprising:
determining a second quality score associated with a second portion of the first copy of the content item fails to satisfy a threshold quality score (selecting a content provider that provides the media item to the user is based on a criterion such as quality; see at least paragraphs 0033-0034, 0044);
determining a third quality score associated with the second portion of the second copy of the content item satisfies the threshold quality score (selecting a content provider that provides the media item to the user is based on a criterion such as quality; see at least paragraphs 0033-0034, 0044); and
sending, by the second server device and to the user device, the second portion of the second copy of the content item (the sending of Newman; see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Newman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the portion of the copy of the content item is a first portion of the first copy of the content item, further comprising:
determining a second recording score associated with a second portion of the copy of the content item fails to satisfy a threshold recording score (alternative language from claim 1);
determining a third recording score associated with the second portion of the second copy of the content item satisfies the threshold recording score (alternative language from claim 1); and
sending, by the second server device and to the user device, the second portion of the second copy of the content item (see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Claims 7, 13 and 19 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1, wherein the user device configured to cause output of the portion is met by presenting the selected media item; see at least paragraph 0063.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claims 12, 18 and 24 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Claims 2-4, 8-10,14-16 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman in view of Ram (US 11,228,792).
Regarding claim 2, Newman discloses the method of claim 1, and disclose receiving, from the user device, the request for the content item, as above, but are not clear about
receiving a device type associated with the user device; and
receiving at least one capability associated with the user device.
Ram discloses the above missing limitations; a user request is inspected to determine a device type and capability; see at least col. 13, line 50-col. 14, line 35.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Newman by the teachings of Ram by having the above limitations so to provide dynamic transcoding for video content; see at least the Abstract.
Regarding claim 3, Newman in view of Ram disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the sending, to the plurality of content origin server devices, the indication of the request further comprises sending, to the plurality of content origin server devices, the device type associated with the user device and the at least one capability associated with the user device (see at least the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Newman in view of Ram disclose the method of claim 2, wherein sending the portion of the copy of the content item to the user device is based at least in part on at least one of the device type associated with the user device or the at least one capability associated with the user device (the sending of Newman in combination with the device information of Ram; see at least the rejection of claims 1 and 2).
Claims 8, 14 and 20 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claims 9, 15 and 21 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claims 10, 16 and 22 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Regarding claim 23, Newman in view of Ram disclose the method of claim 20, wherein the portion of the first copy of the content item is a first portion of the first copy of the content item, further comprising:
determining a second quality score associated with a second portion of the first copy of the content item fails to satisfy a threshold quality score (Newman; selecting a content provider that provides the media item to the user is based on a criterion such as quality; see at least paragraphs 0033-0034, 0044);
determining a third quality score associated with the second portion of the second copy of the content item satisfies the threshold quality score (Newman; selecting a content provider that provides the media item to the user is based on a criterion such as quality; see at least paragraphs 0033-0034, 0044); and
sending, by a second content origin server device storing the second copy of the content item, and to the user device, the second portion of the second copy of the content item (the sending of Newman; see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 ET.
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, 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 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.
/YASSIN ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights