DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
This office action is in response to communications filed 04/23/2026. Claims 2, 13, 19 and 22 are amended. Claims 1, 10, 14 and 18 are cancelled. Claim 24 is new. Claims 2-9, 11-13, 15-17 and 19-24 are pending in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-9, 11-13, 15-17 and 19-24 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 2-4, 6, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, 19-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Malley (of record) in view of Small (of record), Jacobs (of record), and Krause et al. (US20090328096, hereinafter Krause).
Regarding claims 2, 13, 19 and 23, O’Malley discloses a computer-implemented method (see O’Malley, at least at [0003], [0031]-[0032], Fig. 3, and other related text) comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a live media output stream manifest (i.e., playlist, see O’Malley, at least at [0014]-[0015], [0065]-[0070], and other related text) comprising one or more input manifests (see O’Malley, at least at [0014]-[0015], [0042]-[0043], [0065]-[0070], and other related text) based at least in part on a programming schedule (i.e., live/broadcast programs, see O’Malley, at least at [0041], [0054], [0070]-[0071], Fig. 5, and other related text);
generating, by the one or more processors, an alternative live media output stream manifest by inserting one or more alternative manifests to the live media output stream manifest (i.e., updated playlist, see O’Malley, at least at [0067]-[0070], and other related text), wherein the one or more alternative manifests comprise one or more references to one or more pre-encoded media assets (see O’Malley, at least at [0043], [0067]-[0070], and other related text); and
initiating, by the one or more processors and using the alternative live media output stream manifest, a transition between an input manifest stream to an alternative manifest stream (see O’Malley, at least at [0014], [0070], [0103], [0117], [0121], and other related text).
While O’Malley discloses generating, by the one or more processors, an alternative live media output stream manifest by inserting one or more alternative manifests to the live media output stream manifest, he does not specifically disclose generating a plurality of the alternative live media output stream manifests by inserting one or more alternative manifests into a plurality of instances of the live media output stream manifest; or
selecting one or more of the plurality of alternative live media output stream manifests based at least in part on a transition point in an associated instance of the live media output stream manifest, wherein the transition point is associated with one or more audience segments of a set of defined audience segments.
In an analogous art relating to a system for managing media, Small discloses generating a plurality of alternative media output streams by inserting one or more alternative media (i.e., ads, see Small, at least at [0012], [0019], [0037]-[0043], and other related text) into a plurality of instances of a media output stream (i.e., replicated channels, see Small, at least at [0019], [0036]-[0038], [0043], [0047]-[0048], and other related text), and a selected one or more of the plurality of alternative media output streams (i.e., replicated channels, see Small, at least at [0019], [0036]-[0038], [0043], [0047]-[0048], and other related text).
Therefore, as the output streams of Small reasonably correspond to the output stream manifests of O’Malley, the combination of O’Malley in view of Small reasonably teaches initiating, by the one or more processors and using a selected live media output stream manifest, a transition between an input manifest stream to an alternative manifest stream (see O’Malley, at least at [0014], [0070], [0103], [0117], [0121], and other related text), and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of O’Malley to include the limitations as taught by Small for the advantage of more efficiently providing content to users while optimizing system resources.
O’Malley in view of Small does not specifically disclose selecting one or more of the plurality of alternative live media output stream manifests based at least in part on a transition point in an associated instance of the live media output stream manifest, wherein the transition point is associated with one or more audience segments of a set of defined audience segments.
In an analogous art relating to a system for alternative media, Jacobs discloses selecting one or more of a plurality of alternative live media output streams based at least in part on a transition point in an associated instance of the live media output stream manifest (see Jacobs, at least at [0044], [0048]-[0049], and other related text), wherein the transition point is associated with one or more audience segments of a set of defined audience segments (see Jacobs, at least at [0044], [0048]-[0049], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of O’Malley in view of Smalls to include the limitations as taught Jacobs for the advantage of maintaining viewer satisfaction.
And while O’Malley in view of Small and Jacobs discloses the plurality of alternative live media output stream manifests, O’Malley in view of Small and Jacobs does not specifically disclose the plurality of alternative live media output stream manifests are generated independently of an encoding operation for the one or more pre-encoded media assets.
In an analogous art relating to a system for content insertion, Krause discloses alternative output streams generated independently of an encoding operation for one or more pre-encoded media assets (see Krause, at least at [0008], [0016], [0060], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of O’Malley in view of Small and Jacobs to include the limitations as taught by Krause for the advantage of optimizing system resources.
Regarding claim 3, O’Malley in view of Small, Jacobs, and Krause discloses modifying, by the one or more processors, the one or more input assets based at least in part on the one or more alternative assets (i.e., adding to and/or replacing the manifests, see O’Malley, at least at [0014]-[0015], [0042]-[0043], [0065]-[0070], and other related text).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, O’Malley in view of Small, Jacobs, and Krause discloses wherein initiating the transition comprises providing, by the one or more processors, the selected one or more of the plurality of alternative live media output stream manifests to a content delivery network (see O’Malley, at least at [0116], and other related text).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, O’Malley in view of Small, Jacobs, and Krause discloses wherein generating the plurality of alternative live media output stream manifests comprises:
receiving, by the one or more processors, event data indicative of an event associated with the one or more input manifests (i.e., blackout event, see O’Malley, at least at [0070], and other related text) and responsive to the event data, receiving, by the one or more processors, the one or more alternative manifests (see O’Malley, at least at [0070]-[0071], and other related text), and
generating, by the one or more processors, the plurality, see Small, at least at [0036]-[0038], [0043], [0047]-[0048], and other related text) of alternative live media output stream manifests based at least in part on the one or more alternative manifests (see O’Malley, at least at [0070]-[0071], and other related text).
Regarding claims 9 and 20-21, O’Malley in view of Small, Jacobs, and Krause discloses wherein the one or more input manifests comprise one or more input pre-encoded media asset manifests or input live stream manifests (see O’Malley, at least at [0014]-[0016], [0041]-[0042], and other related text), wherein at least one of (a) the one or more input pre-encoded media asset manifests or (b) the input live stream manifests are identified by the programming schedule (i.e., live content, broadcast content, etc., see O’Malley, at least at [0014]-[0016], [0041]-[0042], and other related text).
Regarding claim 11, O’Malley in view of Small, Jacobs, and Krause discloses wherein the one or more input manifests comprise one or more input pre-encoded media asset manifests or input live stream manifests (see O’Malley, at least at [0014]-[0016], [0041], [0070], and other related text) and the one or more alternative manifests comprise one or more alternative pre-encoded media asset manifests or alternative live stream manifests that are not defined by the programming schedule (i.e., on-demand content, see O’Malley, at least at [0014]-[0016], [0070], and other related text).
Regarding claim 12, O’Malley in view of Small, Jacobs, and Krause discloses wherein an input manifest of the one or more input manifests identifies one or more input media segment locations of the input manifest stream and an alternative manifest of the one or more alternative manifests identifies one or more alternative media segment locations of the alternative manifest stream (see O’Malley, at least at [0043], [0064], and other related text).
Regarding claim 24, O’Malley in view of Small, Jacobs, and Krause discloses wherein the plurality of alternative live media output stream manifests is generated independently of the encoding operation based on a re-use of the one or more pre-encoded media assets in the plurality of alternative live media output stream manifests (i.e., an update to the order of the pre-encoded media assets is reasonably a re-use, see O’Malley, at least at [0067]-[0070], and other related text).
Claims 5, 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Malley (of record) in view of Small (of record), Jacobs (of record) and Krause (previously cited), as applied to claims 2, 6, and 13 above, and further in view of Bieschke (of record).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, O’Malley in view of Small Jacobs, and Krause, does not specifically disclose wherein the transition between the input manifest stream and the alternative manifest stream is based at least in part on user input indicative of a selection of the alternative manifest stream.
In an analogous art relating to a system for outputting media, Bieschke discloses a transition between an input stream and an alternative stream is based at least in part on user input indicative of a selection of the alternative stream (see Bieschke, at least at [0039]-[0040], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of O’Malley in view of Small, Jacobs, and Krause to include the limitations as taught by Bieschke for the advantage of more efficiently providing alternatives that are more desirable to a user.
Regarding claim 7, O’Malley in view of Small, Jacobs, and Krause, and further in view of Bieschke discloses wherein the event data is based at least in part on an audience definition that is indicative of one or more stream owner requirements or user preferences (see O’Malley, at least at [0070], and see Bieschke, at least at [0039]-[0040], and other related text).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Malley (of record) in view of Small (of record), Jacobs (of record) and Krause (previously cited) , as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ellis (of record).
Regarding claim 8, O’Malley in view of Small, Jacobs and Krause discloses the alternative manifest stream, but does not specifically disclose wherein the alternative manifest stream corresponds to an alternative programming schedule that is generated based at least in part on the event data.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing alternative media, Ellis discloses alternative media corresponding to an alternative programming schedule generated based on event data (i.e., the alternative options are based on the blackout of the initial program, see Ellis, at least at [0117], [0130], Figs. 14-16, and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of O’Malley in view of Small, Jacobs and Krause to include the limitations as taught by Ellis for the advantage of providing a more structured process for providing alternative media to a user.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Malley (of record) in view of Small (of record), Jacobs (of record) and Krause (previously cited), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bayer (of record).
Regarding claim 22, O’Malley in view of Small, Jacobs and Krause discloses selecting one or more of the plurality of alternative live media output stream manifests based on at least in part on the transition point, but does not specifically disclose wherein the selecting is further based at least in part on audience turnover data identifying a likelihood of a viewer switching from the input manifest stream.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing content, Bayer discloses selecting alternative content based at least in part on audience turnover data identifying a likelihood of a viewer switching from a content stream (see Bayer, at least at [0041], [0048], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of O’Malley in view of Small, Jacobs and Krause to include the limitations as taught by Bayer for the advantage of providing a more diverse process for providing alternative media to a user.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHENEA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9524 and whose email address is CHENEA.SMITH@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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.
/CHENEA DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights