DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/18/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 6, filed 2/18/2026, with respect to the status of the claims is hereby acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 6, filed 2/18/2026, with respect to the Double Patenting rejection of claims 2-21 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. MPEP 804 states: As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Therefore, an application must not be allowed unless the required compliant terminal disclaimer(s) is/are filed and/or the withdrawal of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) is made of record by the examiner. See MPEP § 804.02, subsection VI., for filing terminal disclaimers required to overcome nonstatutory double patenting rejections in applications filed on or after June 8, 1995. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 6-7, filed 2/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. The examiner notes that the applicant’s arguments are directed, inter alia, to the newly amended limitations. In particular, applicant argues that “[n]one of the references, including Lykes, Sherwin, Sherwin '730, Miller, Addington, or Simms teach or suggest at least "one or more alternative license windows in the unified metadata file for enabling same asset and same metadata for replacement of a static asset structure with a dynamic asset structure" as recited by the claims….” See Remarks pg. 6-9. The examiner will rely on newly found prior art references as the newly amended limitations not previously presented incorporate substantive changes to the limitations and their interpretation.
The examiner will rely, in part, on the prior art of record with respect to the interpretation of alternative license windows as claimed. In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the unified metadata file enables the same replacement content (i.e., same asset and same metadata) to which a static asset structure is replaced with a dynamic asset structure. In other words, according the what is explicitly claimed, the same asset and same metadata can be provided in different structures.
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the combination of prior art renders obvious the claimed limitations. First, with respect to Lykes, the prior art teaches the following:
[0079] For example, the network prepares a manifest that includes programming information, including video content, and marketing information, and based on the applicable business rules for the broadcast network or cable network operator, a playlist is created and stored on the network CDN. At the scheduled time, the playlist is called and sent to the uplink system for distribution to the satellite then the MVPD. Typically, the playlist is prepared by the network in accord with the SMPTE BXF schema standard, which describes the network data to be packed into data packets of the Network PID and programming data to be packed into data packets of the Program Map Table PID.
[0081] In this embodiment, an ad selection device 920 is incorporated within the network 901, which may be part of the server 910 as shown, or may be an independent element located anywhere on the network side before the uplink system 902 on the network side. The ad selection device 920 is informed of the schedule, and in particular the ad avails allocated both for national ads and local ads in the programming stream. Based on the avails, the ad selection device 920 can select ads to fill the avails for either a national ad campaign or a local ad campaign.
[0082] The ad selection process on the network side may be similar to the VAST request and response process described above. For example, the ad selection device 920 may be automatically triggered when the manifest or playlist in constructed to prepare a VAST request with configurable fields that include at least program information, impression estimates and audience descriptors, and receives a VAST response. In this scenario, the VAST request/response process may or may not be real-time insertion process, as determined by each network according to its risk comfort level with manipulating the program manifest with more timely ad calls.
[0099] These alternative embodiments give the network the ability to target multiple criteria, such as demographics and geography together, in their ad playouts. Further, the use of network side ad selection and distribution side ad selection can work together to provide a national real-time VAST process and a local real-time VAST process. In addition, these alternative scenarios allow the network and MVPDs to easily reallocate ad inventory between the local ad spots and the national ad spots. For instance, the time allocated for local ad insertions could be increased during the political season when geo-targeting is important, and reduced during the national television ratings (sweeps) season.
Lykes claims 21, 24, and 32 also disclose modifying the program feed to replace at least one of the plurality of underlying national ads with the first digital advertisement. More importantly, Lykes para 60-65 teaches:
In step 610, the files are transcoded to the format of one or multiple specified content distributors. For example, the ad file may be converted from an MPEG2 source (commonly used in broadcast TV) to H.264 (MPEG4) video and AAC audio (common for streaming content). In step 612, the transcoded files are stored in the file server and available for selection and, in step 614, the transcoded files are sent to the local storage on the Media Serving Platform and available for ad insertion...[0061] In one embodiment, a single ad spot may be transcoded into a number of different video formats such that the same ad (stored in different formats) can be provided to different content distribution networks....The SSP can also receive instructions as to what ad inventory is available, for which networks, and for what time slots (excluding prime time and the top 20-25 networks).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that based on the teachings of Lykes, when replacing of a first asset with a second asset, the same second asset its corresponding data can be provided to different networks for replacing an indicated advertisement presented on multiple networks because Lykes teaches a single ad spot may be transcoded into a number of different video formats such that the same ad (stored in different formats) can be provided to different content distribution networks. In Lykes paragraph [0045], the prior art recognizes that different providers utilize different formats for transmission protocols and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that different providers to not use the same manifest formats because Lykes [0079] teaches “[f]or example, the network prepares a manifest that includes programming information, including video content, and marketing information, and based on the applicable business rules for the broadcast network or cable network operator, a playlist is created and stored on the network CDN.”
Similarly Miller of record recognizes that different providers use different formats when utilizing metadata (See para 0064, 0094 “The master control 105, which may be implemented in dedicated hardware, software, or a combination thereof, may provide the received or intercepted content to an encoder or encoding system 110, which may then send the content to one or more virtual or cloud based computing resources 115. The encoder 110 may modify, organize, manage, etc., the content in any of a number of ways, as will be described in greater detail below…The VPSC custom software 112 may encode meta-data in existing MPG4 formats or other formats custom to knowing start and end of program and other data. In one example, the content may be received by the encoder 110, over a serial digital interface (SDI), processed by SW 112, and subsequently sent to an one or more computing resources, such as one or more virtual or cloud resources 115.”).
Equally important are the teachings of Sherwin disclosing metadata manager 22 is a metadata management service configured to support single data source and multi-platform metadata translation and Sherwin para 38-39 teaches a relation with SCTE wherein the metadata manager 22 is vendor and system agnostic, offering dynamic delivery of play lists (i.e., a video stream that comprises content and opportunities for advertisements), advertising avails, and related metadata. The metadata manager 22 is compatible with industry-wide advertising sales and delivery systems, including campaign managers (e.g., the national campaign manager 32 and the local campaign manager 34), content streamers (not shown), and traffic and billing systems (not shown). The metadata manager 22 provides management of play lists, which may comprise rules-based video streams comprising specific entertainment content, such as a feature or several episodes within a series, and designated advanced advertisement insertions, including breaks, entertainment content, pre, post, mid rolls, interstitials, interactives, and channel tunes. Whereas Sherwin does use the term “License Window,” Sherwin ‘730 teaches utilizing metadata that identifies alternative identifiers for replacing content (para 25, 43 disclosing a session identifier as a time-to-live (TTL)) which is interpreted as license window dates for the content that identify the when the content can be provided for display which would require a start time identifier. Sherwin further teaches and identifier may be a perishable identifier configured to expire based on an event such as a time period. The second identifier (e.g., perishable identifier) may be transmitted to an entity associated with content inventory such as an advertisement inventory. See Sherwin para 43 teaching “The secondary identifier 216 may persist at the session level or some other configurable duration of time, or may be associated with a fixed time-to-live (TTL). As an example, when an advertisement rights management platform (e.g., ADS 212) routes advertisement decision rights to an external entity (e.g., upstream device 206) from the network system, the advertisement rights management platform may pass along the perishable secondary identifier 216 to that upstream device 206 while passing both the perishable secondary identifier 216 and the primary persistent user identifier 214 to the instance of the rights management platform of the network system owner.”
In an newly found prior art, Rosenzweig; Jesse Jerome et al. US 11120293 B1 (hereafter Rosenzweig) teaches an alternative use of a time-to-live (TTL) value. Rosenzweig col. 16:8-22 teaches format of the manifest file may be varied according to the design criteria of a particular implementation. The manifest file and/or the content segments may have a respective time-to-live (TTL) value. The TTL value (or property) may be used to ensure certain objects in a network are refreshed. For example, objects in a network may be cached (e.g., throughout the CDN). The TTL value may represent an amount of time, a number of requests and/or a hop count before the object is refreshed (e.g., requested/updated from the origin server). The TTL value for the manifest file and/or the content segments may be set by the operator and/or set at the origin server. In a common CDN implementation, various types of content may remain stored on the CDN until the TTL value expires (e.g., content invalidation may take a long time).
Furthermore, Addington teaches a component for scheduling advertisements and/or content associated with a campaign for insertion of advertisements comprises license window dates for the content that identify the when the content can be provided for display. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that metadata related to video content has a limited time use that would require a start time and an end time when the permission to use the content perishes. (Compare to Rosenzweig disclosing that TTL value can be refreshed.) Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly amended limitations not previously presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
With respect to newly amended limitations recited in representative independent claim 2 (and similarly recited in independent claims 14 and 19 reciting the representative limitations “receiving, by one or more processors, a unified metadata file that corresponds to a universal schema interpretable by a plurality of distribution platforms; inserting, by the one or more processors, one or more alternative license windows in the unified metadata file for enabling same asset and same metadata for replacement of a static asset structure with a dynamic asset structure, according to which a first static asset is replaceable with one or more additional assets by one or more of the plurality of distribution platforms wherein the one or more alternative license windows define one or more start times and one or more end times; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the unified metadata file to one or more of the plurality of distribution platforms,” the applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of said representative claim limitation in the application as filed. The applicant has identified paragraphs [0024] and [0033] in Remarks filed 2/18/2026, however, said paragraphs do not clearly identify what pertains to “static” and what pertains to “dynamic” assets as the words “static” and “dynamic” do not appear anywhere in the applicant’s originally filed specification.
Similarly, the applicant’s originally filed specification references “D1” and “D4” but the specification does not clearly identify how the assets are identified as either static or dynamic as claimed. The claims depending on independent claims 2, 14 and 19 (i.e., 3-13, 15-18, and 20-21) are similarly rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. See MPEP §2163.04 , e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a “simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.”); see also MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”); and MPEP § 2163.04 states “If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”).
Therefore, the examiner requests that the applicant clearly identify where the originally filed specification supports the newly amended limitations before making a decision on whether the newly amended limitations rise to the level of new matter. Therefore, the new claims provide a substantive change to the claims which require a different interpretation of the claims but the applicant has not clearly pointed out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s). Correction is required.
Double Patenting Rejection
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Independent claims 2, 14, 19 dependent claims 3-13 and 15-18 and 20-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Brown, Cherilyn et. al., U.S. Patent No. US 11689303 B1 and in further view of Maharajh; Kavi et al. US 20110225417 A1.
Current Application 18/323,699 U.S. Patent No. US 11689303 B2
2. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, a unified metadata file that corresponds to a universal schema interpretable by a plurality of distribution platforms; inserting, by the one or more processors, one or more alternative license windows in the unified metadata file for enabling same asset and same metadata for replacement of a static asset structure with a dynamic asset structure, according to which a first static asset is replaceable with one or more additional assets by one or more of the plurality of distribution platforms wherein the one or more alternative license windows define one or more start times and one or more end times; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the unified metadata file to one or more of the plurality of distribution platforms.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the unified metadata file is generated based at least in part on one or more asset distribution interface (ADI) specifications associated with the plurality of distribution platforms.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the unified metadata file comprises a plurality of attributes arranged within one or more category nodes respectively corresponding to the one or more ADI specifications.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of attributes comprises a sequence of attributes defined with respect to a corresponding category node of the one or more category nodes.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: inserting, by the one or more processors, one or more license windows in the unified metadata file for providing different data to each of the one or more distribution platforms.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein each of the one or more license windows comprises a license window end time and a license window start time that are defined based at least in part on a date and timestamp structure.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the unified metadata file is generated based at least in part on a programming schedule for a linear media feed.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors, a unified package comprising a plurality of segments of the linear media feed and the unified metadata file; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the unified package to the plurality of distribution platforms.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of segments is determined based at least in part on one or more inbound triggers associated with the linear media feed.
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein transmitting the unified metadata file comprises transmitting the unified metadata file to each of the plurality of distribution platforms.
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the static asset structure and the dynamic asset structure are associated with different viewing windows.
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the one or more alternative license windows enable a replacement of the static asset structure with the dynamic asset structure without modifications to the asset and metadata.
14. A system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to: receive a unified metadata file that corresponds to a universal schema interpretable by a plurality of distribution platforms; insert one or more alternative license windows in the unified metadata file enabling replacement of a first asset structure corresponding to a subject media asset and metadata with a second asset structure corresponding to the subject media asset and metadata, wherein the one or more alternative license windows define one or more start times and one or more end times and transmit the unified metadata file to one or more of the plurality of distribution platforms.
15. The system of claim 14, wherein the unified metadata file is generated based at least in part on one or more asset distribution interface (ADI) specifications associated with the plurality of distribution platforms.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the unified metadata file comprises a plurality of attributes arranged within one or more category nodes respectively corresponding to the one or more ADI specifications.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the plurality of attributes comprises a sequence of attributes defined with respect to a corresponding category node of the one or more category nodes.
18. The system of claim 14, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: inserting, by the one or more processors, plurality of license windows in the unified metadata file for providing different data to each of the one or more distribution platforms.
19. One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive a unified metadata file that corresponds to a universal schema interpretable by a plurality of distribution platforms; insert one or more alternative license windows in the unified metadata file enabling replacement of a first asset structure corresponding to a subject media asset and metadata with a second asset structure corresponding to the subject media asset and metadata, wherein the one or more alternative license windows define one or more start times and one or more end times and transmit the unified metadata file to one or more of the plurality of distribution platforms.
20. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 19, wherein the unified metadata file is generated based at least in part on a programming schedule for a linear media feed.
21. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 20, wherein the one or more processors are further caused to: generate a unified package comprising a plurality of segments of the linear media feed and the unified metadata file; and transmit the unified package to the plurality of distribution platforms.
1. A system, comprising: a memory for storing instructions; one or more processors in a broadcast provider system, the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions, based on the instructions, the one or more processors are configured to: determine a plurality of segments of a linear media feed based on one or more inbound triggers associated with the linear media feed; generate a unified metadata file that corresponds to a universal schema to share with a plurality of distribution platforms, wherein the generated unified metadata file comprises a plurality of category nodes with associated attributes for each distribution platform of the plurality of distribution platforms, and wherein the associated attributes are included in the unified metadata file based on at least a programming schedule of the linear media feed and an asset distribution interface (ADI) specification required by each of the plurality of distribution platforms; insert alternate license windows in the unified metadata file for enabling same asset and same metadata for a replacement of a first asset with a second asset; generate a unified package comprising the plurality of segments of the linear media feed as a broadcast media feed and the generated unified metadata file; and transmit the generated unified package to each distribution platform of the plurality of distribution platforms via a communication network.
2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the linear media feed is at least one of a live video feed or a pre-stored media feed.
3. The system according to claim 1, wherein the unified metadata file includes at least one of a media item identifier of the linear media feed, a title of the linear media feed, a short summary of the plurality of segments, a file format, encryption information, length of the linear media feed, a date and/or time the linear media feed was added to a catalog of media items, a new item indicator for the linear media feed, a media item class, a sequence of a plurality of attributes defined with respect to a corresponding node of the plurality of category nodes, and program-specific information (PSI) data, and closed captioning data.
4. The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate and update the unified metadata file in real-time.
5. The system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of segments of the linear media feed and corresponding unified metadata are re-packaged by one or more of the plurality of distribution platforms based on one or more modifications required within the unified metadata file.
6. The system according to claim 1, wherein the programming schedule defines a schedule of the linear media feed, ordering of the plurality of segments of the linear media feed during playout, and when to distribute the linear media feed.
7. The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured transmit an electromagnetic signal corresponding to the unified package in one or more output formats to the plurality of distribution platforms.
8. The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to add a license window end and start in the unified metadata file.
9. The system according to claim 8, wherein the license window end and start is added in the unified metadata file to provide different data to each distribution platform of the plurality of distribution platforms based on date and timestamp structure.
10. A system, comprising: a memory for storing instructions; one or more processors in a distribution platform, the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions, and based on the executed instructions, the one or more processors are configured to: receive a unified package from a broadcast provider system via a communication network, wherein the unified package comprises a plurality of segments of broadcast media feed with a plurality of triggers, and a unified metadata file, wherein the unified metadata file corresponds to a universal schema to share with a plurality of distribution platforms, wherein the unified metadata file comprises alternate license windows for enabling same asset and same metadata for a replacement of a first asset with a second asset, wherein the unified metadata file further comprises a plurality of category nodes with associated attributes for each of a respective distribution platform of the plurality of distribution platforms, and wherein the associated attributes are included in the unified metadata file based on at least a programming schedule of the broadcast media feed and an asset distribution interface (ADI) specification required by each of the plurality of distribution platforms; identify the plurality of segments of the broadcast media feed with the plurality of triggers and the unified metadata file from the received unified package; parse the universal schema of the plurality of category nodes with the associated attributes in the unified metadata file based on at least the ADI specification required by the distribution platform; correlate the plurality of segments of the broadcast media feed associated with the plurality of triggers and the parsed universal schema of the plurality of category nodes and attributes in the unified metadata file in accordance with at least the programming schedule of the broadcast media feed and the ADI specification required by the distribution platform; transcode the plurality of segments of the broadcast media feed to a transport stream; and transmit a transport stream package that includes at least the transport stream to one or more subscribed consumer devices through the communication network.
11. The system according to claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to include one or more watermarks in the transport stream.
12. The system according to claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to store the transport stream that includes the one or more watermarks with corresponding metadata, wherein the corresponding metadata is a subset of the unified metadata file based on the ADI specification required by the distribution platform.
13. The system according to claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate the transport stream package in based on the ADI specification required by the distribution platform, wherein the transport stream package further includes the one or more watermarks.
14. A method, comprising: determining, by one or more processors, a plurality of segments of a linear media feed based on one or more inbound triggers associated with the linear media feed; generating, by the one or more processors, a unified metadata file that corresponds to a universal schema to share with a plurality of distribution platforms, wherein the generated unified metadata file comprises a plurality of category nodes with associated attributes for each distribution platform of the plurality of distribution platforms, and wherein the associated attributes are included in the unified metadata file based on at least a programming schedule of the linear media feed and an asset distribution interface (ADI) specification required by each of the plurality of distribution platforms; inserting, by the one or more processors, alternate license windows in the unified metadata file for enabling same asset and same metadata for a replacement of a first asset with a second asset; generating, by the one or more processors, a unified package comprising the plurality of segments of the linear media feed as a broadcast media feed and the generated unified metadata file; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the generated unified package to each distribution platform of the plurality of distribution platforms via a communication network.
15. The method according to claim 14, wherein the unified metadata file includes at least one of a media item identifier of the linear media feed, a title of the linear media feed, a short summary of the plurality of segments, a file format, encryption information, length of the linear media feed, a date and/or time the linear media feed was added to a catalog of media items, a new item indicator for the linear media feed, a media item class, a sequence of a plurality of attributes defined with respect to a corresponding node of the plurality of category nodes, and program-specific information (PSI) data, and closed captioning data.
16. The method according to claim 14, further comprising one or more of the plurality of distribution platforms that re-package the plurality of segments of the linear media feed and the unified metadata file based on one or more modifications required within the unified metadata file.
17. The method according to claim 14, wherein the programming schedule defines a schedule of the linear media feed, ordering of the plurality of segments of the linear media feed during playout, and when to distribute the linear media feed.
18. A method, comprising: receiving, by one or more processors in a distribution platform, a unified package from a broadcast provider system via a communication network, wherein the unified package comprises a plurality of segments of broadcast media feed with a plurality of triggers, and a unified metadata file, wherein the unified metadata file corresponds to a universal schema to share with a plurality of distribution platforms, wherein the unified metadata file comprises alternate license windows for enabling same asset and same metadata for a replacement of a first asset with a second asset, wherein the unified metadata file further comprises a plurality of category nodes with associated attributes for each of a respective distribution platform of the plurality of distribution platforms, and wherein the associated attributes are included in the unified metadata file based on at least a programming schedule of the broadcast media feed and an asset distribution interface (ADI) specification required by each of the plurality of distribution platforms; identifying, by the one or more processors, the plurality of segments of the broadcast media feed with the plurality of triggers and the unified metadata file from the received unified package; parsing, by the one or more processors, the universal schema of the plurality of category nodes with the associated attributes in the unified metadata file based on at least the ADI specification required by the distribution platform; correlating, by the one or more processors, the plurality of segments of the broadcast media feed associated with the plurality of triggers and the parsed universal schema of the plurality of category nodes and attributes in the unified metadata file in accordance with at least the programming schedule of the broadcast media feed and the ADI specification required by the distribution platform; transcoding, by the one or more processors, the plurality of segments of the broadcast media feed to a transport stream; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, a transport stream package that includes at least the transport stream to one or more subscribed consumer devices through the communication network.
19. The method according to claim 18, further comprising including, by the one or more processors, one or more watermarks in the transport stream.
20. The method according to claim 19, further comprising storing, by the one or more processors, the transport stream that includes the one or more watermarks with corresponding metadata, wherein the corresponding metadata is a subset of the unified metadata file based on the ADI specification required by the distribution platform.
21. The method according to claim 20, further comprising generating, by the one or more processors, the transport stream package in based on the ADI specification required by the distribution platform, wherein the transport stream package further includes the one or more watermarks.
22. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon, computer implemented instruction that when executed by a processor in a computer, causes the computer to execute operations, the operations comprising: determining, at a broadcast provider system, a plurality of segments of a linear media feed based on one or more inbound triggers associated with the linear media feed; generating a unified metadata file that corresponds to a universal schema to share with a plurality of distribution platforms, wherein the generated unified metadata file comprises a plurality of category nodes with associated attributes for each of the plurality of distribution platforms, and wherein the associated attributes are included in the unified metadata file based on at least a programming schedule of the linear media feed and an asset distribution interface (ADI) specification required by each of the plurality of distribution platforms; inserting alternate license windows in the unified metadata file for enabling same asset and same metadata for a replacement of a first asset with a second asset; generating a unified package comprising the plurality of segments of the linear media feed as a broadcast media feed and the generated unified metadata file; and transmitting the generated unified package to each distribution platform of the plurality of distribution platforms via a communication network.
23. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon, computer implemented instruction that when executed by a processor in a computer, causes the computer to execute operations, the operations comprising: receiving, at distribution platform, a unified package from a broadcast provider system via a communication network, wherein the unified package comprises a plurality of segments of broadcast media feed with a plurality of triggers, and a unified metadata file, wherein the unified metadata file corresponds to a universal schema to share with a plurality of distribution platforms, wherein the unified metadata file comprises alternate license windows for enabling same asset and same metadata for a replacement of a first asset with a second asset, wherein the unified metadata file further comprises a plurality of category nodes with associated attributes for each of a respective distribution platform of the plurality of distribution platforms, and wherein the associated attributes are included in the unified metadata file based on at least a programming schedule of the broadcast media feed and an asset distribution interface (ADI) specification required by each of the plurality of distribution platforms; identifying the plurality of segments of the broadcast media feed with the plurality of triggers and the unified metadata file from the received unified package; parsing universal schema of the plurality of category nodes with the associated attributes in the unified metadata file based on at least the ADI specification required by the distribution platform; correlating the plurality of segments of the broadcast media feed associated with the plurality of triggers and the parsed universal schema of the plurality of category nodes and attributes in the unified metadata file in accordance with at least the programming schedule of the broadcast media feed and the ADI specification required by the distribution platform; transcoding the plurality of segments of the broadcast media feed to a transport stream; and transmitting a transport stream package that includes at least the transport stream to one or more subscribed consumer devices through the communication network.
The independent claims 2, 14, 19 of the current application are directed, similarly to representative independent claims 2 reciting, “receiving, by one or more processors, a unified metadata file that corresponds to a universal schema interpretable by a plurality of distribution platforms; inserting, by the one or more processors, one or more alternative license windows in the unified metadata file for enabling same asset and same metadata for replacement of a static asset structure with a dynamic asset structure, according to which a first static asset is replaceable with one or more additional assets by one or more of the plurality of distribution platforms wherein the one or more alternative license windows define one or more start times and one or more end times; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the unified metadata file to one or more of the plurality of distribution platforms” and claim 1 and claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. US 11689303B2 is directed to “a system, comprising: a memory for storing instructions; one or more processors in a broadcast provider system, the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions, based on the instructions, the one or more processors are configured to: determine a plurality of segments of a linear media feed based on one or more inbound triggers associated with the linear media feed; generate a unified metadata file that corresponds to a universal schema to share with a plurality of distribution platforms, wherein the generated unified metadata file comprises a plurality of category nodes with associated attributes for each distribution platform of the plurality of distribution platforms, and wherein the associated attributes are included in the unified metadata file based on at least a programming schedule of the linear media feed and an asset distribution interface (ADI) specification required by each of the plurality of distribution platforms; insert alternate license windows in the unified metadata file for enabling same asset and same metadata for a replacement of a first asset with a second asset; generate a unified package comprising the plurality of segments of the linear media feed as a broadcast media feed and the generated unified metadata file; and transmit the generated unified package to each distribution platform of the plurality of distribution platforms via a communication network.” Furthermore, claim 7 is directed to one or more output formats corresponding to different asset structures. Furthermore, claim 8 recites “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to add a license window end and start in the unified metadata file” and wherein a license window would perform the functions of the limitation in the current application for “one or more alternative license windows in the unified metadata file according to which a first asset structure corresponding to a subject asset and metadata is replaced with a second asset structure corresponding to the subject asset and metadata, wherein the one or more alternative license windows define one or more start times and one or more end times.” In further reviewing the dependent claims 2-9 of U.S. Patent No. US 11689303B2, all the elements of the current independent claims read on the claims of U.S. Patent No. US 11689303B2, however, U.S. Patent No. US 11689303B2 does not recite the terms “static” and “dynamic” in relation to asset structures.
In an analogous art, Maharajh teaches how a distribution platform manages digital rights management for content delivered to users wherein a digital rights management profile provide for the types of digital rights management systems to be applied to content delivery and deliver of that content to a user device (para 525) and wherein alternate consumption profiles support adapting delivery comprising the substitution of high resolution dynamic content such as video with low resolution video or as a pop-up banner content that includes text, a static image which would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as replacing dynamic content with static content (Maharajh para 529) . See also Maharajh para 668 disclosing dynamic rendering based on content schedules. See also Maharajh para 121 alternate encoding format and para 302, 495 discussing DRM imposed format restrictions. Maharajh para 717-720, 753 delivering a particular type of ad during particular designated time periods.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. US 11689303B2 for generating and transmitting a unified metadata file comprising alternate license windows to be utilized in providing asset structures based on a particular schedule by further incorporating known elements of Maharajh invention for transmitting assets as well as metadata the types of content formats to be delivered in order to be able to substitute a dynamic asset with a static asset based on the delivery platform guidelines.
With respect to the dependent claims 3-13 and 15-18 and 20-21 are further rejected as being dependent on a rejected independent claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lykes; Randy et al. US 20200204279 A1 (hereafter Lykes) and in further view of Sherwin; Jeffrey et al. US 20130254041 A1 (hereafter Sherwin) and in further view of Sherwin; Jeffrey et al. US 20180365730 A1 (hereafter Sherwin ‘730) and in further view of Rosenzweig; Jesse Jerome et al. US 11120293 B1 (hereafter Rosenzweig) and in further view of Maharajh; Kavi et al. US 20110225417 A1 (hereafter Maharajh) and in further view of Miller; Benjamin Aaron et al. US 20190122659 A1 (hereafter Miller) and in further view of Addington; Timothy H. et al. US 7568209 B1 (hereafter Addington) and in further view of Simms et al., US20040154039A1 (hereafter Simms).
Regarding claim 2, “a computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, a unified metadata file that corresponds to a universal schema interpretable by a plurality of distribution platforms; inserting, by the one or more processors, one or more alternative license windows in the unified metadata file for enabling same asset and same metadata for replacement of a static asset structure with a dynamic asset structure, according to which a first static asset is replaceable with one or more additional assets by one or more of the plurality of distribution platforms wherein the one or more alternative license windows define one or more start times and one or more end times; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the unified metadata file to one or more of the plurality of distribution platforms” Lykes teaches (para 79 the network prepares a manifest that includes programming information, including video content, and marketing information, and based on the applicable business rules for the broadcast network or cable network operator, a playlist is created and stored on the network CDN. At the scheduled time, the playlist is called and sent to the uplink system for distribution to the satellite then the MVPD (multichannel video programming distributors). Typically, the playlist is prepared by the network in accord with the SMPTE BXF schema standard, which describes the network data to be packed into data packets of the Network PID and programming data to be packed into data packets of the Program Map Table PID; para 79-86 playlist is prepared by the network in accord with the SMPTE BXF schema standard; para 76 – transmitted programming feeds typically comprise unified metadata file comprising messages according to a schema standard). With respect to metadata file that define one or more start and end times, Lykes para 38-39, 80-81, 87, 93 teaches that parameter information that is part of the content request comprises avail information including start and end time of the start time and the duration and wherein the programming schedule comprises ad avails and indications of content to be selected for insertion and/or replacement/splicing. See also Lykes claim 21 claiming modifying the program feed to replace at least one of the plurality of national advertisements with the first digital advertisement. With respect to the teaching of Lykes regarding a unified metadata file that corresponds to a universal schema, whereas Lykes does not use the term “universal,” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the teachings of Lykes to corresponds to “universal schema.” Lykes also does not use the term license windows as claimed not the terms “static” and “dynamic” as claimed.
For example, in an analogous art, the significant teaching value of Sherwin’s invention is that the metadata manager 22 is a metadata management service configured to support single data source and multi-platform metadata translation and Sherwin para 38-39 teaches a relation with SCTE wherein the metadata manager 22 is vendor and system agnostic, offering dynamic delivery of play lists (i.e., a video stream that comprises content and opportunities for advertisements), advertising avails, and related metadata. The metadata manager 22 is compatible with industry-wide advertising sales and delivery systems, including campaign managers (e.g., the national campaign manager 32 and the local campaign manager 34), content streamers (not shown), and traffic and billing systems (not shown). The metadata manager 22 provides management of play lists, which may comprise rules-based video streams comprising specific entertainment content, such as a feature or several episodes within a series, and designated advanced advertisement insertions, including breaks, entertainment content, pre, post, mid rolls, interstitials, interactives, and channel tunes. Sherwin Table 2 teaches the metadata manager 22 creates, reads, and updates content metadata for supported platforms. Sherwin para 31-32 disclosing memory and processors part of a broadcast provider system that were not explicitly disclosed in Lykes. See also Sherwin teachings to review the above teachings in context: para 33-56 and Tables 1-9 - teaches an asset distribution interface specification required by each of the plurality of distribution platforms and determining a plurality of segments of the received linear media feed based on one or more inbound triggers associated with the received linear media feed and transmitting assets as well as metadata describing that content; application server module for managing metadata. The metadata manager 22 permits content provider 20 or service provider 18 to ingest, edit, and distribute video metadata for VOD, advertising content, linear content, and network content for QAM and IP delivery platforms. The metadata manager 22 is a metadata management service configured to support single data source and multi-platform metadata translation; para 57-65 The POIS 44 contains features, attributes and constraints for each placement opportunity, compliant with platform, rights, and policies including those of the content in which it exists. These placement opportunities are content specific; therefore, attributes and constraints may vary by network, geographic region, or other content distribution dimension. The POIS 44 defines the standardized interface for accessing the placement opportunity information. The POIS 44 uses ADI2.0 and therefore needs to provide a mapping from ADI1.1 to ADI2.0. In one embodiment, the metadata manager 22 ingests ADI1.1, transform it (with field mapping), and output ADI2.0.; placement response and placement status notification message translation Customizable ad placement request targeting criteria enrichment Platform agnostic and customer application independent Optionally integrates with This Technology's Data Boundary Manager (DBM) (not shown) for restricting high valued data from being exchanged with third party ADSs Supports multiple simultaneous instances of This Technology's VAST adapters (not shown) for routing ad decision requests and placement status to broadband CMS s and their ADSs Integrates with This Technology's Content Information Service (CIS) Appliance and Placement Opportunity Information Service (POIS) appliance for faster, more efficient content and placement opportunity metadata acquisition and utilization. Whereas Sherwin does use the term “License Window,” Sherwin does not use the exact terms to identify “one or more alternative license windows in the unified metadata file for enabling same asset and same metadata for replacement of a static asset structure with a dynamic asset structure, according to which a first static asset is replaceable with one or more additional assets by one or more of the plurality of distribution platforms wherein the one or more alternative license windows define one or more start times and one or more end times.” Additionally, Sherwin does identify the placement of static and dynamic assets (See Sherwin para 65 and Table 12).
Furthermore, in an analogous art, Sherwin ‘730 teaches utilizing metadata that identifies alternative identifiers for replacing content (para 25, 43 disclosing a session identifier as a time-to-live (TTL)) which is interpreted as license window dates for the content that identify the when the content can be provided for display which would require a start time identifier. Sherwin further teaches and identifier may be a perishable identifier configured to expire based on an event such as a time period. The second identifier (e.g., perishable identifier) may be transmitted to an entity associated with content inventory such as an advertisement inventory. See Sherwin para 43 teaching “The secondary identifier 216 may persist at the session level or some other configurable duration of time, or may be associated with a fixed time-to-live (TTL). As an example, when an advertisement rights management platform (e.g., ADS 212) routes advertisement decision rights to an external entity (e.g., upstream device 206) from the network system, the advertisement rights management platform may pass along the perishable secondary identifier 216 to that upstream device 206 while passing both the perishable secondary identifier 216 and the primary persistent user identifier 214 to the instance of the rights management platform of the network system owner.”
In order to clarify the inferences drawn from Sherwin and Sherwin ‘730, the prior art to Rosenzweig teaches an alternative use of a time-to-live (TTL) value. Rosenzweig Col. 16:8-22 teaches format of the manifest file may be varied according to the design criteria of a particular implementation. The manifest file and/or the content segments may have a respective time-to-live (TTL) value. The TTL value (or property) may be used to ensure certain objects in a network are refreshed. For example, objects in a network may be cached (e.g., throughout the CDN). The TTL value may represent an amount of time, a number of requests and/or a hop count before the object is refreshed (e.g., requested/updated from the origin server). The TTL value for the manifest file and/or the content segments may be set by the operator and/or set at the origin server. In a common CDN implementation, various types of content may remain stored on the CDN until the TTL value expires (e.g., content invalidation may take a long time).
As discussed above, Sherwin does disclose the terms “static” and “dynamic” when teaching asset placement in media content delivered to users. In an analogous art, Maharajh teaches how a distribution platform manages digital rights management for content delivered to users wherein a digital rights management profile provide for the types of digital rights management systems to be applied to content delivery and deliver of that content to a user device (para 525) and wherein alternate consumption profiles support adapting delivery comprising the substitution of high resolution dynamic content such as video with low resolution video or as a pop-up banner content that includes text, a static image which would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as replacing dynamic content with static content (Maharajh para 529) . See also Maharajh para 668 disclosing dynamic rendering based on content schedules. See also Maharajh para 121 alternate encoding format and para 302, 495 discussing DRM imposed format restrictions. Maharajh para 717-720, 753 delivering a particular type of ad during particular designated time periods.
The motivation to modify Lykes, Sherwin, Sherwin ‘730, Rosenzweig, and Maharajh is further evidenced in Miller (para 91-92, 96-100, 156, 172) content and packages may support multiple renditions with specific attributes wherein a component can be configured, for example via inputs received from a producer, that detects the presence of that name-value pair and renders a rendition using the XML data; data may be stored in a de-normalized format that allows any number of attributes to be configured and stored over time without necessary code changes).
Whereas the combination of Lykes and Sherwin do not disclose the terms “alternative license windows” as claimed, in an analogous art, Addington renders obvious the deficiency of Lykes and Sherwin wherein Addington teaches a component for scheduling advertisements and/or content associated with a campaign for insertion of advertisements comprises license window dates for the content that identify the when the content can be provided for display.
See prior art made of record but not relied upon: Sheldon, Andrew K. US 20050050218 A1 paragraphs 41, 59 - The network operator for MSO 202 can search a database of video assets made available by video asset owners. The database is essentially uploaded or updated by each video asset owner. This upload can include the title of the video asset, a mechanically reproducible copy of the video asset, the genre or rating of the video asset, the price of the video asset, and the window that expresses the license period in which the video asset can be offered to video delivery service consumers (e.g., viewers). The network operator for MSO 202 searches available video assets to then select which ones that they want to use or they want to license or acquire. A request is then made to the video asset owner who then will service the request by delivering the pages that support the requested video asset once it has been deployed to a headend or region of headends.
The motivation to modify Lykes, Sherwin, Sherwin ‘730, Miller, and Addington is further evidenced in the disclosure of Simms disclosing a unified metadata file wherein programming file delivery from different Independent Data Providers IDP’s using Global Listings Format (GLF) wherein Simms para 8 recognizes a known problem in the art wherein in “FIG. 1, a first IDP 102 uses a first proprietary data file format 112, a second IDP 104 uses a second proprietary data file format 114, and a third IDP 106 uses a third proprietary data file format 116. A receiving entity 108, such as a local programming distributor may even subscribe to several IDPs and must process programming data files from each into programming 109.” Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that when a linear stream content is provided with proprietary data file format, then the metadata may be converted to a unified metadata file and relates to addressing a known problem of providing a unified metadata file that corresponds to a universal schema interpretable by a plurality of distribution platforms.
See prior art made of record but not relied upon: TVTechnology disclosing “Broadcasters like Turner had expressed a need for a file container that would facilitate the management of different version of program items for different platforms and different devices.” (Interoperability section pg. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lykes invention for generating and transmitting a unified metadata file comprising a universal schema and attributes for a plurality of distribution platforms based on at least a programming schedule of the received linear media feed by further incorporating known elements of Sherwin’s invention for transmitting assets as well as metadata describing that content and an asset distribution interface specification required by each of the plurality of distribution platforms by further incorporating known elements of Sherwin ‘730 and Rosenzweig for utilizing metadata that identifies alternative identifiers for replacing content targeted to viewers (e.g., a session identifier as a time-to-live (TTL)) or refreshing the values of the same media asset (as disclosed in Rosenzweig) which is interpreted as license window dates for the content that identify the when the content can be provided for display) in order to not only transmit program and advertisement content but to also transmit metadata that would enable the renderer of Maharajh and Miller to display the program and advertisements is different renditions based on a preprogrammed template and enable the viewer to interact with the viewed content and be presented with dynamic targeted video content to prevent the viewer to being presented with old or stale content and also provide content assets in the appropriate format structure. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lykes, Sherwin, Sherwin ‘730, Rosenzweig, Maharajh, and Miller by further incorporating known elements of Addington comprising a component for scheduling advertisements and/or content associated with a campaign for insertion of advertisements comprising license window dates for the content that identify the when the content can be provided for display in order to allow a network operator to search for available video assets to then select which ones that they want to use or they want to license or acquire. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lykes, Sherwin, Sherwin ‘730, Rosenzweig, Maharajh, Miller, and Addington by further incorporating known elements of Simms for providing proprietary data file format wherein the metadata may be converted to a unified metadata file because the teachings of Simms address a known problem of providing a unified metadata file that corresponds to a universal schema interpretable by a plurality of distribution platforms.
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the unified metadata file is generated based at least in part on one or more asset distribution interface (ADI) specifications associated with the plurality of distribution platforms” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claim 2 wherein Lykes teaches distribution platform information as needed; para 79-86 playlist is prepared by the network in accord with the SMPTE BXF schema standard, which describes the network data to be packed into data packets of the Network PID and programming data to be packed into data packets of the Program Map Table PID; para 76 – transmitted programming feeds typically comprise unified metadata file comprising messages according to a schema standard); see also Sherwin para 33-56 and Tables 1-9- teaches an asset distribution interface specification required by each of the plurality of distribution platforms and determining a plurality of segments of the received linear media feed based on one or more inbound triggers associated with the received linear media feed and transmitting assets as well as metadata describing that content; application server module for managing metadata. The metadata manager 22 permits content provider 20 or service provider 18 to ingest, edit, and distribute video metadata for VOD, advertising content, linear content, and network content for QAM and IP delivery platforms. The metadata manager 22 is a metadata management service configured to support single data source and multi-platform metadata translation; para 57-65 The POIS 44 contains features, attributes and constraints for each placement opportunity, compliant with platform, rights, and policies including those of the content in which it exists. These placement opportunities are content specific; therefore, attributes and constraints may vary by network, geographic region, or other content distribution dimension. The POIS 44 defines the standardized interface for accessing the placement opportunity information. The POIS 44 uses ADI2.0 and therefore needs to provide a mapping from ADI1.1 to ADI2.0. In one embodiment, the metadata manager 22 ingests ADI1.1, transform it (with field mapping), and output ADI2.0.; placement response and placement status notification message translation Customizable ad placement request targeting criteria enrichment Platform agnostic and customer application independent Optionally integrates with This Technology's Data Boundary Manager (DBM) (not shown) for restricting high valued data from being exchanged with third party ADSs Supports multiple simultaneous instances of This Technology's VAST adapters (not shown) for routing ad decision requests and placement status to broadband CMS s and their ADSs Integrates with This Technology's Content Information Service (CIS) Appliance and Placement Opportunity Information Service (POIS) appliance for faster, more efficient content and placement opportunity metadata acquisition and utilization.
Regarding claim 4, “wherein the unified metadata file comprises a plurality of attributes arranged within one or more category nodes respectively corresponding to the one or more ADI specifications” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 2-3 with respect to the teachings of Lykes and Sherwin wherein Simms further discloses a unified metadata file wherein programming file delivery from different Independent Data Providers IDP’s using Global Listings Format (GLF) wherein Simms para 8 recognizes a known problem in the art wherein in “FIG. 1, a first IDP 102 uses a first proprietary data file format 112, a second IDP 104 uses a second proprietary data file format 114, and a third IDP 106 uses a third proprietary data file format 116. A receiving entity 108, such as a local programming distributor may even subscribe to several IDPs and must process programming data files from each into programming 109.” Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that when a linear stream content is provided with proprietary data file format, then the metadata may be converted to a unified metadata file and relates to addressing a known problem such as “wherein the unified metadata file comprises a plurality of attributes arranged within one or more category nodes respectively corresponding to the one or more ADI specifications” because a unified metadata file be used to provide metadata and programming content to heterogenous devices. Simms further teaches the unified metadata file comprises category notes as a category for data and the associated attributes for the content data in Fig. 4-7 and para 42-46 for Fig. 4, para 47-51 for Fig. 5, para 52-62 for Fig. 6 disclosing different elements, attributes and or corresponding values and para 63-73 for Fig. 7 disclosing the structure of the program information and schedule information comprising category information and attributes for the categories.
Regarding claim 5, “wherein the plurality of attributes comprises a sequence of attributes defined with respect to a corresponding category node of the one or more category nodes” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 2-4 wherein Lykes teaches distribution platform information as needed; para 79-86 playlist is prepared by the network in accord with the SMPTE BXF schema standard, which describes the network data to be packed into data packets of the Network PID and programming data to be packed into data packets of the Program Map Table PID; para 76 – transmitted programming feeds typically comprise unified metadata file comprising messages according to a schema standard). See also Sherwin para 33-56 and Tables 1-9- teaches an asset distribution interface specification required by each of the plurality of distribution platforms and determining a plurality of segments of the received linear media feed based on one or more inbound triggers associated with the received linear media feed and transmitting assets as well as metadata describing that content; application server module for managing metadata. The metadata manager 22 permits content provider 20 or service provider 18 to ingest, edit, and distribute video metadata for VOD, advertising content, linear content, and network content for QAM and IP delivery platforms. The metadata manager 22 is a metadata management service configured to support single data source and multi-platform metadata translation; para 57-65 The POIS 44 contains features, attributes and constraints for each placement opportunity, compliant with platform, rights, and policies including those of the content in which it exists. These placement opportunities are content specific; therefore, attributes and constraints may vary by network, geographic region, or other content distribution dimension. The POIS 44 defines the standardized interface for accessing the placement opportunity information. The POIS 44 uses ADI2.0 and therefore needs to provide a mapping from ADI1.1 to ADI2.0. In one embodiment, the metadata manager 22 ingests ADI1.1, transform it (with field mapping), and output ADI2.0.; placement response and placement status notification message translation Customizable ad placement request targeting criteria enrichment Platform agnostic and customer application independent Optionally integrates with This Technology's Data Boundary Manager (DBM) (not shown) for restricting high valued data from being exchanged with third party ADSs Supports multiple simultaneous instances of This Technology's VAST adapters (not shown) for routing ad decision requests and placement status to broadband CMS s and their ADSs Integrates with This Technology's Content Information Service (CIS) Appliance and Placement Opportunity Information Service (POIS) appliance for faster, more efficient content and placement opportunity metadata acquisition and utilization.
Regarding claim 6, “further comprising: inserting, by the one or more processors, one or more license windows in the unified metadata file for providing different data to each of the plurality of distribution platforms” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 2-5 wherein the teachings of Addington combined with the teachings of Lykes, Sherwin, Miller and Simms render the limitation obvious in consideration that Addington teaches a component for scheduling advertisements and/or content associated with a campaign for insertion of advertisements comprises license window dates for the content that identify the when the content can be provided for display.
See prior art made of record but not relied upon: Sheldon, Andrew K. US 20050050218 A1 paragraphs 41, 59 - The network operator for MSO 202 can search a database of video assets made available by video asset owners. The database is essentially uploaded or updated by each video asset owner. This upload can include the title of the video asset, a mechanically reproducible copy of the video asset, the genre or rating of the video asset, the price of the video asset, and the window that expresses the license period in which the video asset can be offered to video delivery service consumers (e.g., viewers). The network operator for MSO 202 searches available video assets to then select which ones that they want to use or they want to license or acquire. A request is then made to the video asset owner who then will service the request by delivering the pages that support the requested video asset once it has been deployed to a headend or region of headends.
Regarding claim 7, “wherein each of the one or more license windows comprises a license window end time and a license window start time that are defined based at least in part on a date and timestamp structure” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 2-6 wherein the teachings of Addington combined with the teachings of Lykes, Sherwin, Miller and Simms render the limitation obvious in consideration that Addington teaches a component for scheduling advertisements and/or content associated with a campaign for insertion of advertisements comprises license window dates for the content that identify the when the content can be provided for display.
See prior art made of record but not relied upon: Sheldon, Andrew K. US 20050050218 A1 paragraphs 41, 59 - The network operator for MSO 202 can search a database of video assets made available by video asset owners. The database is essentially uploaded or updated by each video asset owner. This upload can include the title of the video asset, a mechanically reproducible copy of the video asset, the genre or rating of the video asset, the price of the video asset, and the window that expresses the license period in which the video asset can be offered to video delivery service consumers (e.g., viewers). The network operator for MSO 202 searches available video assets to then select which ones that they want to use or they want to license or acquire. A request is then made to the video asset owner who then will service the request by delivering the pages that support the requested video asset once it has been deployed to a headend or region of headends.
Regarding claim 8, “wherein the unified metadata file is generated based at least in part on a programming schedule for a linear media feed” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 2-6 wherein Lykes teaches (para 79 the network prepares a manifest that includes programming information, including video content, and marketing information, and based on the applicable business rules for the broadcast network or cable network operator, a playlist is created and stored on the network CDN. Lykes para 38-39, 80-81, 87, 93 teaches that parameter information that is part of the content request comprises avail information including start and end time of the start time and the duration and wherein the programming schedule comprises ad avails and indications of content to be selected for insertion and/or replacement/splicing. See also Lykes claim 21 claiming modifying the program feed to replace at least one of the plurality of national advertisements with the first digital advertisement.
Regarding claim 9, “further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors, a unified package comprising a plurality of segments of the linear media feed and the unified metadata file; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the unified package to the plurality of distribution platforms” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 2-8 wherein the rejection of claim 2 discusses the unified package and wherein Lykes teaches (para 76-79 receiving programming feeds as described in SCTE with network ID and program map table PID wherein Network PID includes at least network information, network text, virtual channel information and system time, and the Program Map Table PID includes at least program information and program name. Thus, a typical multiplexed stream will include sequences of data packets that comprise Network PID streams and Program Map Table PID streams…SCTE 35 cue messages are typically placed within a descriptor field of the Program Map Table PID, and the corresponding program information is carried in the Network PID and the Program Map Table PID when the transport stream is generated on the network side.
Regarding claim 10, “wherein the plurality of segments is determined based at least in part on one or more inbound triggers associated with the linear media feed” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 2-9 wherein Lykes para 38, 78, 83 teaches program segments comprising avails have associated triggers. See also para 33-56 and Tables 1-9 - teaches an asset distribution interface specification required by each of the plurality of distribution platforms and determining a plurality of segments of the received linear media feed based on one or more inbound triggers associated with the received linear media feed and transmitting assets as well as metadata describing that content.
Regarding claim 11, “wherein transmitting the unified metadata file comprises transmitting the unified metadata file to each of the plurality of distribution platforms” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 2-9 wherein Lykes teaches (para 79 the network prepares a manifest that includes programming information, including video content, and marketing information, and based on the applicable business rules for the broadcast network or cable network operator, a playlist is created and stored on the network CDN. At the scheduled time, the playlist is called and sent to the uplink system for distribution to the satellite then the MVPD. Typically, the playlist is prepared by the network in accord with the SMPTE BXF schema standard, which describes the network data to be packed into data packets of the Network PID and programming data to be packed into data packets of the Program Map Table PID; para 79-86 playlist is prepared by the network in accord with the SMPTE BXF schema standard; para 76 – transmitted programming feeds typically comprise unified metadata file comprising messages according to a schema standard). See also Sherwin para 33-56 and Tables 1-9 - teaches an asset distribution interface specification required by each of the plurality of distribution platforms and determining a plurality of segments of the received linear media feed based on one or more inbound triggers associated with the received linear media feed and transmitting assets as well as metadata describing that content.
Regarding claim 12, “wherein the first asset structure and the second asset structure are associated with different viewing windows” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 2-5 wherein the teachings of Addington combined with the teachings of Lykes, Sherwin, Miller and Simms render the limitation obvious in consideration that Addington teaches a component for scheduling advertisements and/or content associated with a campaign for insertion of advertisements comprises license window dates for the content that identify the when the content can be provided for display.
See prior art made of record but not relied upon: Sheldon, Andrew K. US 20050050218 A1 paragraphs 41, 59 - The network operator for MSO 202 can search a database of video assets made available by video asset owners. The database is essentially uploaded or updated by each video asset owner. This upload can include the title of the video asset, a mechanically reproducible copy of the video asset, the genre or rating of the video asset, the price of the video asset, and the window that expresses the license period in which the video asset can be offered to video delivery service consumers (e.g., viewers). The network operator for MSO 202 searches available video assets to then select which ones that they want to use or they want to license or acquire. A request is then made to the video asset owner who then will service the request by delivering the pages that support the requested video asset once it has been deployed to a headend or region of headends.
Regarding claim 13, “wherein the one or more alternative license windows enable a replacement of the static asset structure with the dynamic asset structure without modifications to the subject media asset and metadata” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 2-12 wherein Lykes teaches enabling a replacement of the first asset with the second asset without modifications to the same asset and metadata wherein Lykes para 38-39, 80-81, 87, 93 teaches that parameter information that is part of the content request comprises avail information including start and end time of the start time and the duration and wherein the programming schedule comprises ad avails and indications of content to be selected for insertion and/or replacement/splicing. See also Lykes claim 21 claiming modifying the program feed to replace at least one of the plurality of national advertisements with the first digital advertisement. Furthermore, as discussed in the rejection of claims 2-12. Addington teaches a component for scheduling advertisements and/or content associated with a campaign for insertion of advertisements comprises license window dates for the content that identify the when the content can be provided for display. See also Maharajh teaches how a distribution platform manages digital rights management for content delivered to users wherein a digital rights management profile provide for the types of digital rights management systems to be applied to content delivery and deliver of that content to a user device (para 525) and wherein alternate consumption profiles support adapting delivery comprising the substitution of high resolution dynamic content such as video with low resolution video or as a pop-up banner content that includes text, a static image which would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as replacing dynamic content with static content (Maharajh para 529) . See also Maharajh para 668 disclosing dynamic rendering based on content schedules. See also Maharajh para 121 alternate encoding format and para 302, 495 discussing DRM imposed format restrictions. Maharajh para 717-720, 753 delivering a particular type of ad during particular designated time periods.
See prior art made of record but not relied upon: Sheldon, Andrew K. US 20050050218 A1 paragraphs 41, 59 - The network operator for MSO 202 can search a database of video assets made available by video asset owners. The database is essentially uploaded or updated by each video asset owner. This upload can include the title of the video asset, a mechanically reproducible copy of the video asset, the genre or rating of the video asset, the price of the video asset, and the window that expresses the license period in which the video asset can be offered to video delivery service consumers (e.g., viewers). The network operator for MSO 202 searches available video assets to then select which ones that they want to use or they want to license or acquire. A request is then made to the video asset owner who then will service the request by delivering the pages that support the requested video asset once it has been deployed to a headend or region of headends.
Regarding the system claims 14-18 and the non-transitory computer-readable storage media claims 19-21 are grouped and rejected with the method claims 2-13 because the steps of the method claims are met by the disclosure of the apparatus and methods of the reference(s) as discussed in the rejection of claims 2-13 and because the steps of the method are easily converted into elements of computer implemented method or system claims by one of ordinary skill in the art.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFONSO CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3950. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10am to 6pm.
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. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALFONSO CASTRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421