DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/12/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 41-60 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1-40 are cancelled.
Claims 41-60 are new.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 27-28 and 38 is withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments cancelling these claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the new claims have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 41-45, 47-49, 51-54, and 56-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2014/0366047) in view of Syed et al. (US 2020/0053398) and further in view of Rogers (US 2005/0229227).
Regarding claims 41, 51, and 58, Thomas teaches: A method comprising:
receiving, at a server [internet-based content platform 120 server (par. 60, Fig. 1)],
(i) at least first and second versions of a media content item [a normal media item and a preview version of the media item (par. 89). Different resolution versions of the media item such as HD, 4k, 1080p, 1080i, 720p (par. 67 and 104)] and
automatically generating by the server, data records for the first and second versions of the media content item, including generating for each version of the media content item a respective data record that identifies the version and that specifies a respective access tier [Data store 150 may be a database storing records that include identifiers of media items and information set by the channel curator, such as subscription levels that correspond to different types of access to the media content and whether the media item is a free item or a paid item (par. 54, 57, 64-65, 88-89, 103-105, Fig. 1 and 3)]
receiving by the server a request to view a content feed, wherein the content feed includes the media content item, and wherein the request is associated with a user account [The menu 1915 can enable the user to navigate to different channel GUIs, such as a home GUI including a user feed associated with a user’s subscriptions or a channel feed GUI, including media items of the channel (par. 192-194, 229, and 237, Fig. 15A and 19-20)] and
responsive to the request, causing a device to display a user interface configured based on an access tier of the user account [displaying a user home GUI or channel feed GUI. The subscriptions section may be organized by a type of access or by a subscription level (par. 197 and 229, Fig. 15A and 20)], and
based on the generated data records including (a) selecting a data record from among the generated data records, based on the access tier of the user account and the access tier specified by the selected data record [querying the data store to identify subscription data and subscription level data of the user. Determining if the subscription level allows the user to access the media item according to the requested type of access, such as a particular quality version or different language version (par. 162, 180, 186)], and
(b) configuring the user interface to include an actionable link to the media content item specified by the selected data record [the user feed can include feed items including an associated action of the video, such as a thumbnail or frame of the video which the user can activate to view the new video (par. 195, Fig. 15A)].
Thomas does not explicitly disclose: (ii) a markup document that lists the first and second versions as being respective versions of the media content item and that indicates for each version a respective access tier; the data records generated based on the received markup document, the configuring the user interface is based on the selecting; and the actionable link is to the version of the media content item.
Syed teaches: (ii) a markup document that lists the first and second versions as being respective versions of the media content item and that indicates for each version a respective access tier [a manifest may be an XML file that includes different versions of the media content associated with respective access levels. For example, a 1080p (“res=‘1080’”), 30 fps (“fr=‘30’”) version of the media content 100 is available to all subscribers (“level=‘all’”) and a 4K (“res=‘4K’”), 60 fps (“fr=‘60’”) version of the media content 100 is available only to premium subscription users (“level=‘premium’”). (par. 16, 118 and 122, Fig. 6)]
the actionable link is to the version of the media content item [a user may make a content request for a particular version of the content via a listing or guide, such as a 4K movie in Spanish (par. 47)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Thomas and Syed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Thomas by incorporating a markup document that lists the first and second versions as being respective versions of the media content item and that indicates for each version a respective access tier; and the actionable link is to the version of the media content item as disclosed by Syed. The motivation for doing so would have been to access the information using a well-known file format (Syed - par. 33 and 48) to improve efficiency and to allow the user to easily access the particular version of content (par. 47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Thomas and Syed in obtaining the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Syed does not explicitly disclose: the data records are generated based on the received markup document, and the configuring the user interface is based on the selecting.
Rogers teaches: the data records are generated based on the received markup document [retrieving televised programming data 35 from an XML file and loading it into the MMCD database 10 (par. 73 and 77, Fig. 1)], and
the configuring the user interface is based on the selecting [populating a form by initiating a call to the MMCD database for the corresponding data from the loaded XML file based on selecting (par. 89, 97-99, Fig. 9)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Thomas, Syed, and Rogers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Thomas and Syed by incorporating the data records are generated based on the received markup document, and the configuring the user interface is based on the selecting as disclosed by Rogers. The motivation for doing so would have been to store the data for later use, loaded from an industry standard format (Rogers - par. 73) and to populate the corresponding element for user selection (par. 98). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Thomas and Syed with Rogers to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 42, 52, and 59, Thomas, Syed, and Rogers teach the method of claim 41; Thomas further teaches: storing the data records in a media data store, wherein selecting of the data record comprises referring to the stored data records in the media data store [records are stored in data store 150 that may be a database storing records including identifiers of media items and querying the data store to identify subscription data and subscription level data of the user (par. 57, 64-65, 162, 180, 186, Fig. 1)].
Regarding claims 43 and 53, Thomas, Syed, and Rogers teach the method of claim 41; Thomas further teaches: the second version of the media content item is an advertisement-free version of the first version of the media content item [the subscription level includes an advertising attribute that can be an instruction to display no advertisements (par. 66 and 94-95)].
Regarding claims 44 and 54, Thomas, Syed, and Rogers teach the method of claim 41; Thomas further teaches: the second version of the media content item is a condensed version of the first version of the media content item [a preview or shortened version of the media item (par. 89)].
Regarding claim 45, Thomas, Syed, and Rogers teach the method of claim 41; Syed further teaches: the geographical restriction of the media content item is included in the markup document [rules including a geographical restriction of the media content item (par. 46). rules determined based on a manifest (par. 74-75). The manifest is an XML file (par. 48)].
Regarding claim 47, Thomas, Syed, and Rogers teach the method of claim 41; Thomas further teaches: the method is carried out in a media delivery system [The internet-based content platform 120 may provide digital content, such as video (par. 61, Fig. 1)].
Regarding claims 48 and 56, Thomas, Syed, and Rogers teach the method of claim 41; Thomas further teaches: the receiving comprises receiving from a publisher of the media content item [adding media content, which may be uploaded by a channel curator, such as a professional content provider (par. 43 and 54)].
Regarding claims 49, 57, and 60, Thomas, Syed, and Rogers teach the method of claim 41; Thomas further teaches: the media content item is a narrated media content item [the content may be narrated, such as a video blog or digital audio book (par. 43 and 53, Fig. 1)].
Claims 46 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2014/0366047) in view of Syed et al. (US 2020/0053398), further in view of Rogers (US 2005/0229227), and further in view of Ziskind et al. (US 2020/0359095).
Regarding claim 46, Thomas, Syed, and Rogers teach the method of claim 45; Thomas, Syed, and Rogers do not explicitly disclose: the user interface includes at least one visual element indicating the geographical restriction.
Ziskind teaches: the user interface includes at least one visual element indicating the geographical restriction [a portion 614 that informs the user of the reason that the requested media program is unavailable. Such reasons may include a local blackout or regional blackout (par. 111, Fig. 6)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Thomas, Syed, Rogers, and Ziskind before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Thomas, Syed, and Rogers by incorporating the user interface includes at least one visual element indicating the geographical restriction as disclosed by Ziskind. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide additional information to the user regarding a blackout restriction, such as the reason why the media program is blacked out (Ziskind - par. 108 and 111). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Thomas, Syed, and Rogers with Ziskind to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 55, claim 55 is rejected for the same reasons given in the above rejection of claims 45 and 46.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2014/0366047) in view of Syed et al. (US 2020/0053398), further in view of Rogers (US 2005/0229227), and further in view of Wright (US 2024/0251128).
Regarding claim 50, Thomas, Syed, and Rogers teach the method of claim 48; Thomas further discloses the media content may be an audio item (par. 53) and Syed further discloses a television episode (par. 73). However, Thomas, Syed, and Rogers do not explicitly disclose: the media content item is a podcast episode.
Wright teaches: the media content item is a podcast episode [Media content may be a particular podcast episode (par. 3, 143, 148, and 290)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Thomas, Syed, Rogers, and Wright before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Thomas, Syed, and Rogers by incorporating the media content item is a podcast episode as disclosed by Wright. The motivation for doing so would have been to support ever-growing types of digital media, including podcasts, to enhance the user experience (Wright – par. 3-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Thomas, Syed, and Rogers with Wright to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Boyd whose telephone number is (571) 270-0676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER BOYD/Examiner, Art Unit 2424