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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the combination of Ghadi and Wang fails to disclose the amended claimed features of “an encoding task associated with repeatedly encoding primary content” and lack motivation to be combined. The primary content in question is video content, thus any encoding task associated therewith is performed repeatedly (for each displayed frame of video). Further, the motivation to combine was stated previously by the examiner, wherein it was shown that Wang teaches the benefit of identifying time gaps in content, said gaps providing opportunity to insert additional advertising.
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.
Claims 9-14 and 29-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadi et al. (2016/0205443, of record) [Ghadi] in view of Wang et al. (2011/0154389, of record) [Wang].
Regarding claims 9, 29, and 35-36, Ghadi discloses a method comprising:
determining, by a content distribution device, based on an indication in a content stream, that an encoding task associated with repeatedly encoding primary content satisfies an encoding resource requirement (ad break showing available bandwidth for content insertion, figs. 6-8 and paragraphs 0040 and 0067);
based on the encoding task satisfying the encoding resource requirement, causing an encoding device to store a secondary content segment and cease an encoding operation (replacement of static ad with live ad, paragraphs 0057 and 0086, by ad stitching, paragraphs 0040-0041 and 0061);
causing the encoding device to send, based on receiving a request for the primary content, the secondary content segment toa media device with instructions; and causing, based on the instructions and the request, the media device to output the secondary content segment (instructing new requests to join particular streams, paragraph 0071).
Ghadi fails to disclose that the resource requirement is a threshold value.
In an analogous art, Wang teaches identifying breaks in the display of primary content that are at least large enough to insert additional content which both enhances the presentation of secondary content and eliminates what would otherwise be "dead" air time of a presentation (paragraph 0045).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the method of Ghadi to include the encoding resource requirement is a threshold value, as suggested by Wang, for the benefit of dynamically inserting enhancement contents to eliminate dead air time otherwise found in content presentations.
Regarding claims 10 and 30, Ghadi and Wang disclose the method and apparatus of claims 9 and 29, wherein the encoding resource requirement threshold is associated with a bandwidth availability (enough room to place advertisement content, Wang paragraph 0045).
Regarding claims 11 and 31, Ghadi and Wang disclose the method and apparatus of claims 9 and 29, wherein the content distribution device comprises a head end, wherein the encoding device comprises an encoder/transcoder, and wherein the media device comprises at least one of: a set top box, a smart phone, or a computer (Ghadi fig. 1).
Regarding claims 12 and 32, Ghadi and Wang disclose the method and apparatus of claims 9 and 29, but fail to disclose causing the media device to output the secondary content segment comprises causing the media device to store and repeatedly output the secondary content segment.
Examiner takes official notice that storing targeted advertisements at a media device for later reuse according to a predefined advertisement campaign was notoriously well known in the art at the time of effective filing, providing a means for reducing network bandwidth requirements by reusing content that has been previously broadcast rather than rebroadcasting said content each time.
It would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and apparatus of Ghadi and Wang to include the instructions are further configured to cause the media device to store the secondary content segment and repeatedly output the stored secondary content. This provides the benefit reducing overall network bandwidth requirements by reusing content that has been previously broadcast rather than rebroadcasting said content each time.
Regarding claims 13 and 33, Ghadi and Wang disclose the method and apparatus of claims 9 and 29, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the media device to store the secondary content segment (Ghadi paragraph 0075).
Regarding claims 14 and 34, Ghadi and Wang disclose the method and apparatus of claims 13 and 29, further comprising: receiving, by the content distribution device, a request for different primary content; and causing, based on the request, the media device to cease output of the secondary content segment (Ghadi teaches dynamic changes to content provided are based on a changing audience, paragraphs 0011 and 0053, such as channel changes, paragraph 0071).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 21-28 are allowed. As previously stated, said claims are directed towards identifying a substantial time duration of at least a minimum length between broadcasts to serve as the trigger event that determines whether secondary content is stored. This feature does not appear to be taught or reasonably suggested in the prior art at the time of effective filing.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 DOMINIC D SALTARELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-7302. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-1915. 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.
/DOMINIC D SALTARELLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421