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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johns et al (2018/0234714), in view of Yang et al (2018/0262783).
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20, Johns et al teaches a method (Abstract) comprising:
receiving, at an auxiliary network [124] from a content delivery network [120] of a plurality of content delivery networks [120, 102] (Figure 1), a first copy of a recorded digital content stream (i.e. content segments sent to storage platform and manifest file updated), wherein the recorded digital content stream corresponds to a digital content stream and received and recorded by the content delivery network [120, 102] (Para. 0035-36), and wherein the recorded digital content stream comprises a plurality of content segments (i.e. media segments) (Figures 1, 4; Abstract; Para. 0035); and
transmitting, from the auxiliary network [124] to a first storage [126] associated with the auxiliary network [124], the first copy of the recorded digital content stream, wherein the first copy of the recorded digital content stream comprises a copy of the plurality of content segments and a corresponding playlist (i.e. media segments and corresponding first manifest file), and wherein a second copy of the recorded digital content stream is stored by a second storage [132] associated with the content delivery network [120, 102] (Figures 1, 4; Abstract, Para. 0035-36, 0063).
The reference is unclear with respect to content steam generated by a user device and the first copy of the recorded digital content stream is accessible to the user device.
In similar field of endeavor, Yang et al teaches content steam generated by a user device (Figure 7; Para. 0107) and the first copy of the recorded digital content stream is accessible to the user device (Figures 9-10; Para. 0113, 0117-119). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of ensuring devices are active and transmitting proper content to streaming service.
Regarding claim 2, johns et al teaches limitations discussed with respect to claim 1. The reference teaches the first storage [126] associated with the auxiliary network [124], the first copy of the recorded digital content stream. The reference is unclear with respect to transcoding into a corresponding video-on-demand (VOD) content.
In similar field of endeavor, Yang et al teaches transcoding into a corresponding video-on-demand (VOD) content (Figure 1, 2; Para. 0039-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of ensuring device are active and transmitting proper content for adaptive content and bandwidth utilization.
Claim 3, the combination teaches storing, by the first storage [126] associated with the auxiliary network [124], the corresponding video-on-demand content (Johns: Figure 1 and Yang: Figures 1-2; Para. 0039-40).
Regarding claim 4, Johns and Yang, the combination teaches limitations discussed with respect to claim. The combination is unclear with respect to a cache control of the first storage is different from a cache control of the second storage.
However, the examiner takes official notice that both concepts and advantages are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination by specifically a cache control of the first storage is different from a cache control of the second storage before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the common knowledge purpose of caching more popular content at edge servers for quick response time and ability to retrieve less popular content as needed.
Regarding claim 5, Johns and Yang, the combination teaches limitations discussed with respect to claim 1. The combination is unclear with respect to the first copy of the recorded digital content stream is cached long-term in the first storage. However, the examiner takes official notice that both concepts and advantages are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination by specifically the first copy of the recorded digital content stream is cached long-term in the first storage before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the common knowledge purpose of caching more popular content at edge servers for quick response time and ability to retrieve less popular content as needed.
Claim 6, the combination teach limitations discussed with respect to claim 1. The combination is unclear with respect to the second copy of the recorded digital content stream is temporarily cached in the second storage. However, the examiner takes official notice that both concepts and advantages are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination by specifically the second copy of the recorded digital content stream is temporarily cached in the second storage before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the common knowledge purpose of caching more popular content at edge servers for quick response time and ability to retrieve less popular content as needed.
Claim 7 is rejected wherein a protocol of the first copy of the recorded digital content stream is the same as a protocol of the second copy of the recorded digital content stream (i.e. Yang teaches multimedia content format (referred to as multimedia segment files) may be a content delivery protocol, such as HLS, MSS, HDS, and DASH) (Johns: Para. 0021, 0037 and Yang: 0039).
Claim 8 is rejected wherein the protocols of the first copy and the second copy of the recorded digital content stream comprise HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) (i.e. Yang teaches multimedia content format (referred to as multimedia segment files) may be a content delivery protocol, such as HLS, MSS, HDS, and DASH) (Johns: Para. 0021, 0037 and Yang: 0038-39).
Claim 9 is rejected wherein the second copy of the recorded digital content stream comprises a copy of the plurality of content segments and a corresponding playlist (i.e. the manifest files of the second storage platform will include network locations for copies of the same content segments maintained on the second storage platform) (Johns: Para. 0036, 0041-42).
Claim 10 is rejected wherein the auxiliary network [124] is associated with a streaming platform, and wherein the plurality of content delivery networks [102, 120] is associated with one or more third-party providers (Para. 0036).
Claim 11 is rejected wherein the first copy of the recorded digital content stream is accessible to the user device via a main load path, and wherein the second copy of the recorded digital content stream is accessible to the user device via a backup load path (i.e. A path relative to the host address and an alternative path to be used if the source path is found to be invalid) (Para. 0039).
Claim 12 is rejected wherein the first copy of the recorded digital content stream is accessible to an auditor device via a main load path, and wherein the second copy of the recorded digital content stream is accessible to the auditor device via a backup load path (Johns: Para. 0039 and Yang: Figure 9-10; Para. Figures 9-10; Para. 0113, 0117-119).
Claim 13 is rejected, wherein determining whether a content segment of the first copy of the recorded digital content stream is missing or corrupted (i.e. encounter errors such that one or more transport segments are incompletely transferred or not transferred at all) (Johns: Para. 0043-44).
Claim 14 is rejected wherein based on determining that the content segment of the first copy of the recorded digital content stream is missing or corrupted, retrieving, via the auxiliary network, a corresponding content segment of the second copy of the recorded digital content stream from the second storage associated with the content delivery network (i.e. one or more discontinuities are identified, generates a combined manifest file in which the discontinuities are addressed using data retrieved from one or more other manifest files) (Figures 1, 4; Johns: Para. 0044-45).
Claim 15 is rejected wherein incorporating the corresponding content segment of the second copy of the recorded digital content stream into the first copy of the recorded digital content stream (Figure 1-2, 4; Johns: Para. 0044-45).
Claim 16 is rejected wherein based on determining that the content segment of the first copy of the recorded digital content stream is missing or corrupted, retrieving, via the auxiliary network, the second copy of the recorded digital content stream from the second storage associated with the content delivery network (Figures 1, 4; Johns: Para. 0044-45).
Claim 17 is rejected wherein the first copy of the recorded digital content stream is received at the auxiliary network synchronously as the content delivery network records the digital content stream (i.e. live-streamed content, a content provider may continuously generate new segments and update the corresponding manifest file to include entries for the new segments) (Johns: Para. 0006, 0021, 0038).
Claim 18 is rejected wherein the auxiliary network comprises a recording cluster configured to record the first copy of the recorded digital content stream (Figure 1; Para. 0034, 0037 and 0043).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUNAL LANGHNOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 5:00PM 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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571) 272-7527. 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.
/KUNAL LANGHNOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights