DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to communications filed 12/3/2025. Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are amended. Claim 4 is cancelled. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are pending in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-21 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, at lines 16-21 recites:
(a) transmitting, by the client device, playback metadata to an edge server regarding the playback of the targeted advertisement, wherein the edge server checks whether the playback met the targeting criteria based on the playback metadata from the client device; and
(b) retaining, in cache at the edge server, the first adaptive bitrate segment for the client device in response to the edge server determining the playback of the targeted advertisement did not meet the targeting criteria.
The Applicant’s original disclosure recites, at least at
[0024] that “Client devices 102 can transmit metadata to edge server 110 related to the content or advertisements consumed on client devices 102. Metadata can include a source channel, source IP address, source port, source name, timestamp, geolocation, internet service provider, device identifier, user account, program identifier, channel identifier, advertisement identifier, user demographics, or other metadata suitable for identifying the source, location, and time the content was replayed or recorded. Metadata can be used by edge server 110 or origin 120 to confirm the targeting requirements of an advertisement contracted by origin 120 were met during playback of the advertisement”.
and at least at [0041] that “Systems, methods, and devices of the present disclosure tend to improve advertisement delivery. Advertisements are prefetched with enough lead time to replace a leading ad in linear programming. Satellite television providers, for example, can prefetch an advertisement and replace an advertisement within a few seconds of broadcast delay. Replaceable advertisements in live broadcasts can be identified and replaced by prefetching advertisements using techniques described above. Storage and computing resources can be conserved, and ad delivery metrics improved, by retaining prefetched advertisements for a viewing period or until the ad is viewed by a user fitting the ad criteria. Advertisements can also be prefetched just-in-time using the above techniques when advertisement slots are identifiable in advance”. While the Examiner acknowledges that limitation (a) is sufficiently supported by the original disclosure, there does not appear to be sufficient support for limitation (b). Specifically, there is nothing in the disclosure that requires that an ad MUST be played, and therefore nothing precluding the ad from not being played. And if there is no playback of the ad, then there is no metadata to be sent about the ad, as the metadata is to confirm that requirements were met during playback. Additionally, limitation (b) requires that the retaining is done based on the server determining that playback did not meet the requirements. However, it appears that the disclosure simply teaches that the ad is retained based only on either a viewing period or until the ad is viewed by a user fitting the criteria. This does not require that the ad MUST be played. Limitation (b), though, requires that the server determines that the ad MUST be played back, AND that playback did not meet the criteria, AND therefore the ad will be retained. There does not appear to be sufficient support for that level of specificity in the disclosure.
In addition to the reasonings above, claims 9 and 15 are also rejected as reciting “retaining, by the edge server, the adaptive bitrate segments in the cache for retransmission to the client device in response to determining the playback of the targeted advertisement did not meet the targeting requirements associated with the targeted advertisement” at lines 22-25, and lines 24-27, respectively. Specifically, there does not appear to be sufficient support for the “retransmission” limitation as there does not appear to be any requirement in the disclosure that the ad MUST be played in a first place.
Claim 21 recites “transmitting, by the client device, second playback metadata to the edge server regarding a second playback of the targeted advertisement, wherein the edge server checks whether the second playback met the targeting criteria based on the playback metadata from the client device; and purging, from cache at the edge server, the first adaptive bitrate segment of the targeted advertisement for the client device in response to the edge server determining the second playback of the targeted advertisement met the targeting criteria”. Fore reasons similar to those above, there does not appear to be sufficient support for these limitations in the Applicant’s original disclosure. Specifically, there does not appear to be sufficient disclosure of any second playback, or second playback metadata.
Claims 2-3, 5-8, 10-14 and 16-21 are rejected as they incorporate the deficiencies of the claims upon which they depend.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENEA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9524 and whose email address is CHENEA.SMITH@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHENEA DAVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421