DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-21 are presented for consideration.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/02/2025 has been entered.
Double Patenting
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,757,964. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘964 patent anticipates the claims of the current application.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 10-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan et al. [ US Patent Application No 2014/0040026 ], in view of Ramaley [ US Patent Application No 2017/0280181 ].
5. As per claim 2, Swaminathan discloses the invention as claimed including a system for configuring manifest files and serving video segment files comprising:
one or more processing units each including at least one processor; and
one or more memory units coupled with and readable by the processing units and storing therein instructions which, when executed by the processing units, cause the system for configuring manifest files and serving video segment files to:
receive one or more requests, from a user device, for a manifest file incorporating third-party content by a third-party content provider [ i.e. access manifest file from a server ] [ S502-S505, Figure 5; and paragraphs 0038, 0039, and 0041 ];
generate the manifest file identifying the third party content [ i.e. the manifest handler module replaces the advertisement markers included in the manifest file with the advertisement URLs ] [ 604, Figure 6; and paragraphs 0035, and 0042 ];
receive a front request for a front-video segment file immediately preceding the third-party content; serve the requested front-video segment file immediately preceding the third- party content [ i.e. the first three media segment files and request the corresponding media segment files and receives these files ] [ S507, S508, Figure 5; and paragraphs 0039, 0054, and 0069 ];
receive a back request for a back-video segment file, the back-video segment file to be served immediately subsequent to providing the third-party content; serve the requested back-video segment file immediately subsequent the third- party content [ i.e. playback of the media segment URLs immediately following the playback of the inserted advertisement ] [ Figure 8c; and paragraphs 0076, and 0080 ].
Swaminathan does not specifically disclose
wherein the third-party content is bracketed by performance analyzer served segments; and
analyze the third-party content provider based at least in part on the front request and the back request.
Ramaley discloses
wherein the third-party content is bracketed by performance analyzer served segments [ i.e. first manifest to acquire and playback sequential video fragments of the requested content and advertisement at the first bitrate ] [ Figure 2A; Abstract; and paragraphs 0002, and 0038 ];
analyze the third-party content provider based at least in part on the front request and the back request [ i.e. if the network connection used by the user device changes, and the user device may seek the content in lower or higher bitrate to accommodate changing network conditions ] [ Figure 2B; and paragraphs 0039 0049, and 0048 ].
It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Swaminathan and Ramaley because the teaching of Ramaley would enable to minimize disruption to a viewing experience [ Ramaley, paragraph 0039 ].
6. As per claim 3, Swaminathan discloses further cause the system to transmit the manifest file to the user device [ S502, Figure 5; and paragraph 0038 ].
7. As per claim 4, Swaminathan discloses wherein the third-party content comprises an advertisement [ i.e. various advertisement files may be located on third party servers ] [ paragraph 0023, and 0032 ].
8. As per claim 5, Swaminathan discloses archiving front request data associated with the front request [ Figure 5; and paragraph 0039 ].
9. As per claims 10-13, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 2-5
10. As per claims 18, and 19, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 2, and 3.
11. As per claim 20, Swaminathan discloses archiving front request data associated with the front request [ Figure 5; and paragraph 0039 ], and archiving request data associated with the back request [ Figure 8d; and paragraph 0054, and 0055 ].
Claim(s) 6-9, 14-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan et al. [ US Patent Application No 2014/0040026 ], in view of Ramaley [ US Patent Application No 2017/0280181 ], and further in view of Macaulay et al. [ US Patent Application No 2014/0365491 ].
As per claim 6, Swaminathan in view of Ramaley discloses the system for configuring manifest files and serving video segment files of claim 5, furthermore, Swaminathan discloses a source of the front request [ Figure 8d ], and Ramaley discloses q requested bitrate of the front request [ i.e. first bitrate ] [ Abstract; and paragraph 0002 ]. Swaminathan in view of Ramaley does not specifically disclose a timestamp of the front request. Macaulay discloses a timestamp of the front request [ i.e. timestamp ] [ paragraphs 0016, 0018, and 0044 ] It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Swaminathan, Ramaley and Macaulay because the teaching of Macaulay would enable to provide a technique for managing personalized playlists [ Macaulay, paragraph 0002 ].
As per claim 7, Swaminathan discloses archiving requested data associated with the back request [ Figure 8d; and paragraph 0054, and 0055 ].
As per claim 8, Swaminathan in view of Ramaley discloses the system for configuring manifest files and serving video segment files of claim 5, furthermore, Swaminathan discloses a source of the back request [ Figure 8d ], and Ramaley discloses a requested bitrate of the back request [ i.e. second bitrate ] [ Abstract; and paragraph 0002 ]. Swaminathan in view of Ramaley does not specifically disclose a timestamp of the back request. Manaulay discloses a timestamp of the back request [ i.e. timestamp ] [ paragraphs 0016, 0018, and 0044 ] It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Swaminathan, Ramaley and Macaulay because the teaching of Macaulay would enable to provide a technique for managing personalized playlists [ Macaulay, paragraph 0002 ].
As per claim 9, Swaminathan discloses wherein analyzing the third-party content provider based at least in part on the front request and the back request comprises evaluating performance based on the front request data and the back request data [ paragraphs 0050, and 0080 ].
17. As per claims 14-17, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 6-9.
18. As per claim 21, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 6, 8, and 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 06/02/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
g manifest files and serving video segment
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reynolds [ US Patent Application No 2015/0302487 ] discloses a bitrate monitors the varying delivery bitrate of the video stream
Phillips et al. [ US Patent Application No 2013/0091521 ] discloses adaptive ads with advertising markers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-2727952. 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.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446