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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2,4-6, 8-9, 11, 15 and 20 US Patent 12,439,100 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims 1-20 and Patent Claims 1-2,4-6, 8-9, 11, 15 and 20 are directed to the same invention with a different in scope (broader in scope than the patent claim) and are therefore an obvious variant thereof. (See the mapping of pending claims and patent claims).
Claim 1 in the pending application independent claim is anticipated by conflicting patent independent claims 1 and 7.
Claim 2 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 2 and 7.
Claim 3 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 5.
Claim 4 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 1.
Claim 5 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 5 and 6.
Claim 6 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 5.
Claim 7 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 4.
Claim 8 in the pending application independent claim is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 8 and 13.
Claim 9 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 8 and 9.
Claim 10 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 5.
Claim 11 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 8.
Claim 12 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 5 and 6.
Claim 13 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 5.
Claim 14 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 11.
Claim 15 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 15 and 20.
Claim 16 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 15 and 18.
Claim 17 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 15 and 16.
Claim 18 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 17.
Claim 19 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 5 and 6.
Claim 20 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 5.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,104,143 B1 to Li et al.
As to claims 1 and 8, Li discloses a method/[an apparatus comprising: one or more processors, and memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: ] (see fig.1-2) comprising: receiving, via a first computing device, a first request for first content; receiving, via a second computing device, a second request for second content, wherein the second content differs from the first content (see fig.2; col.4,ll.32-55); based on the first request and the second request, determining, based on the first content and the second content, an initialization segment associated with the first content and the second content (see col.4,ll.65-col.5,ll.13); and sending the initialization segment to the first computing device and the second computing device, wherein the first computing device outputs the first content based on the initialization segment, and the second computing device outputs the second content based on the initialization segment (see fig.2; col.4,ll.11-30).
As to claims 2 and 9, Li further discloses wherein the first computing device and the second computing device are user devices (see fig.2, el.205a-205c).
As to claims 3 and 10, Li further discloses wherein the first content and the second content are associated with a plurality of common parameters (see col.4,ll.65-col.5,ll.13).
As to claims 4 and 11, Li further discloses wherein the plurality of common parameters comprises a bitrate(see col.4,ll.65-col.5,ll.13).
As to claims 5 and 12, Li further discloses wherein the first content is associated with a first plurality of parameters, each parameter being associated with a value, wherein the values associated with the first plurality of parameters are valid for values associated with a second plurality of parameters, respectively, wherein the second plurality of parameters are associated with the second content(see col.5,ll.30-60).
As to claims 6 and 13, Li further discloses wherein a first manifest file associated with the first content comprises the first plurality of parameters, and a second manifest file associated with the second content comprises the second plurality of parameters (see col.5,ll.30-60).
As to claim 15, claim 15 is directed toward embody the method of claim 1 in “computer readable medium”. It has to embody the procedures of Li et al (see fig.1-4) discussed with respect to claim 1 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; there by the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 16, claim 16 is directed toward embody the method of claim 1 in “computer readable medium”. It has to embody the procedures of Li et al (see fig.1-4) discussed with respect to claim 2 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; there by the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 17, claim 17 is directed toward embody the method of claim 1 in “computer readable medium”. It has to embody the procedures of Li et al (see fig.1-4) discussed with respect to claim 3 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; there by the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 18, claim 18 is directed toward embody the method of claim 1 in “computer readable medium”. It has to embody the procedures of Li et al (see fig.1-4) discussed with respect to claim 4 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; there by the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 19, claim 19 is directed toward embody the method of claim 1 in “computer readable medium”. It has to embody the procedures of Li et al (see fig.1-4) discussed with respect to claim 5 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; there by the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 20, claim 20 is directed toward embody the method of claim 1 in “computer readable medium”. It has to embody the procedures of Li et al (see fig.1-4) discussed with respect to claim 6 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; there by the same rejection is applicable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,104,143 B1 to Li et al in-view US 2016/0269458 A1 to Mandyam.
As to claims 7 and 14, Li fails explicitly discloses wherein determining the requested initialization segment associated with the first content and the second content comprises at least one of: determining, based on the first request, that the first content is not locally available; or determining, based on the second request, that the second content is not locally available.
Mandyam discloses wherein determining the requested initialization segment associated with the first content and the second content comprises at least one of: determining, based on the first request, that the first content is not locally available; or determining, based on the second request, that the second content is not locally available(see page.4,¶0036,¶0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li with the teaching as taught by Mandyam in order to retrieve an initialization segment associated with the requested media content from a content server.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0112761 A1 Stockhammer et al -discloses initializing playback of media data of the media presentation using the initialization set; retrieving the media data of the media presentation; and presenting the media data according to the initialized playback.
US 2024/0259450 A1 to YU et al- discloses determining whether at least one of the initialization segment and the media segment is stored in a cache; if at least one of the initialization segment and the media segment is stored in the cache, generating the MIME message by loading the at least one segment from the cache; and if at least one of the initialization segment and the media segment is missed from the cache, transmitting a request for the at least one segment to an origin device of the media representation.
US 9,860,612 B2 to Good et al-discloses sending the at least one segment from the media server to the first computing device in response to a second request that includes the computing device identifier, wherein the at least one segment comprises an initialization segment that includes data configured to initialize a media player at the first computing device to determine whether the first computing device is capable of decoding particular media content.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MULUGETA MENGESHA whose telephone number is (469)295-9212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM 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, 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.
MULUGETA MENGESHA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/Mulugeta Mengesha/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights