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 .
1. Claims 1-7 and 21-34 are presented for examination.
Claims 8-20 have been cancelled.
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-7 and 21-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pantos, US 2021/0185401 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Pantos teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a user device, a plurality of playlists (i.e., Pantos, in pages 3-4 paragraph [0019], discloses the client device can receive media segments (content items) that are in the playlist that was obtained/received…Once the updated playlist is available, it can be received by the client device…the update playlist identifies the URI as the next future media segment. Pantos, in abstract, also discloses client device(s) can receive the playlist and can make…requests for an updated playlist…this approach allows…to request and receive playlists), wherein each playlist of the plurality of playlist corresponds to a different item (Applicant’s specification, in page 10 paragraph [0029], discloses: “playlist” may comprise… any suitable file or data structure that facilitates access to content items (e.g., segments of content). Pantos, in page 4 paragraph [0019], discloses client device reads the new/different URI for the new/different future media segment/item from the update playlist which was received);
retrieving, based on a first playlist of the plurality of playlists, a first content item corresponding to the first playlist (i.e., the client device can request and receive media segments (i.e., a fist content item) that are in the playlist (i.e., a first playlist file), page 3 paragraph [0019]); and
determining, based on one or more other playlists (i.e., the update playlist) of the plurality of playlist files, one or more other content items corresponding to the one or more other playlists are available (i.e., determine whether the URI detected is now associated with a media segment that is downloadable/available in the current update playlist…If the URI is now associated with a currently available media segment in the current update playlist, then…client device reads the new URI for the new/different future media segment/item from the update playlist which was received, Fig. 2 and pages 3-4 paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 2, Pantos teaches the method of claim 1, wherein retrieving the first content item corresponding to the first playlist comprises receiving an instruction to monitor a content stream associated with the first playlist file (i.e., page 3 paragraph [0019], and page 4 paragraph [0022]-page 5 paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Pantos teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the instruction is based on one or more of: a geographic location, a device platform, or a device capability associated with one or more of: a rate plan, a connection speed, or hardware performance (i.e., page 4 paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 4, Pantos teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first playlist file differs from the one or more other playlist (i.e., page 3 paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 5, Pantos teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more other content items corresponding to the one or more other playlists are available comprises determining whether one or more performance metrics associated with the one or more other content items meet or exceed a threshold (i.e., page 4 paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 6, Pantos teaches the method of claim 5, wherein determining the one or more performance metrics meet or exceed the threshold comprises one or more of: determining, based on one or more sequence numbers associated with the one or more other playlists, whether the one or more performance metrics meet or exceed the threshold, wherein the threshold is associated with the one or more sequence numbers; or determining, based on one or more start numbers associated with the one or more other playlists, the one or more performance metrics meet or exceed the threshold, wherein the threshold is associated with the one or more start numbers; or determining, based on a quantity of content segments associated with the one or more other playlists, the one or more performance metrics meet or exceed the threshold, wherein the threshold is associated with the quantity of content segments (i.e., page 4 paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 7, Pantos teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising one or more of: causing, based on the one or more other content items not being available, one or more remedial actions to be performed; or sending, to a computing device, an indication that one or more performance metrics, associated with the one or more other content items, are indicative of the one or more other content items not being available (i.e., page 3 paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claims 21-27, those claims recite an apparatus for performing method claims 1-7, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
In addition, Pantos teaches one or more processors (i.e., microprocessor 805); and memory (i.e., memory 807,809, 811) storing processor-executable instruction that, when executed by the one or more processors (i.e., Fig. 4 and page 5 paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claims 28-34, those claims recite one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor- executable instructions thereon, which, when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform method claims 1-7, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant argued in substance that
(A) Prior art reference(s) does not or suggest receiving, by a user device, a plurality of playlists, wherein each playlist of the plurality of playlist corresponds to a different item.
As to point (A), Pantos does teach receiving, by a user device, a plurality of playlists (i.e., client device(s) can receive the playlist and can make… requests for an updated playlist and for the future media segment…allows… to request and receive playlists and media segments, abstract), wherein each playlist of the plurality of playlist corresponds to a different item (Applicant’s specification, in page 10 paragraph [0029], discloses: “playlist” may comprise any suitable file or data structure that facilitates access to content items (e.g., segments of content). Pantos, in page 4 paragraph [0019], discloses client device reads the new/different URI for the new/different future media segment/item from the update playlist which was received).
As to point (B), Prior art reference(s) does not teach or suggest determining, based on one or more other playlists of the plurality of playlist files, one or more other content items corresponding to the one or more other playlists are available.
As to point (B), Pantos does teach determining, based on one or more other playlists of the plurality of playlist files, one or more other content items corresponding to the one or more other playlists are available (i.e., Pantos, in Fig. 2 and pages 304 paragraph [0019], discloses determine whether the URI detected is now associated with a media segment that is downloadable/available in the current update playlist (i.e., one or more other playlists)…If the URI is now associated with a currently available media segment in the current update playlist, then…client device reads the new URI for the new future media segment (i.e., one or more other content items) from the update playlist which was received. Applicant’s specification, in page 10 paragraph [0029], discloses: “playlist” may comprise any suitable file or data structure that facilitates access to content items (e.g., segments of content)).
Therefore, Pantos does disclose receiving, by a user device, a plurality of playlists, wherein each playlist of the plurality of playlist corresponds to a different item; and determining, based on one or more other playlists of the plurality of playlist files, one or more other content items corresponding to the one or more other playlists are available, as broadly cited in the claim(s) and described by Applicant’s specification.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pau et al., US 9,143,381 B2, discloses a system and method for managing and sequencing the transmission of digital content items from a network-accessible content service to a portable digital content device, and the cache management subsystem is configured to sequence transmission of digital content items to a given portable device based on attributes associated with the playlists containing the digital content items to be transmitted to the device (i.e., abstract).
5. 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.
6 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OANH DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Maxiflex Mon-Fri 6:00am-5:00pm.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached on (571) 272-4170. 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.
/OANH DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights