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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/3/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, 11, and 20 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 1, 3-9, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fransman et al. (US 2006/0179469) in view of Godfrey et al. (US 2020/0154160).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, Fransman teaches: A computer-implemented method for automating a content release, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and a system comprising: a memory storing an orchestrator module; and a processor coupled to the memory that executes the orchestrator module [A master scheduler system and method for providing NVOD content (abstract, par. 62, and Fig. 2)] comprising the steps of:
determining a content release plan associated with a content release, wherein the content release plan includes a plurality of line items, wherein each line item identifies (i) a content item to be released, (ii) a start time at which the content item should be made available, and (iii) an end time at which the content item should become unavailable [determining a schedule used by the master scheduler 20 for near video on demand (NVOD). For example, Fig. 9 demonstrates a schedule with service/channel line items, each line identifying a content item to be provided on the channel, such as Toy Story, and including a start time and end time that the video item is available on the channel (par. 5 and 87, Fig. 2, 9, and 11)]
parsing the plurality of line items included in the content release plan to build a deployment graph, wherein the deployment graph identifies a plurality of deployment tasks to be executed to complete the content release [The MSA creates in step 274, based on the schedule, a task schedule and milestones; that is, indicator events, times, and tasks which are used to gauge the operation of the master scheduler 20. Fig. 26 demonstrates a graph of various tasks, such as generating periodic tape loading instructions at step 284 for the video server 11 to be prepared to stream out the content (par. 153-154 and 159-161, Fig. 2 and 26)]
executing the content release plan by automatically performing the plurality of deployment tasks according to (i) the start time at which each content item should be made available and (ii) the end time at which each content item should become unavailable from the content release plan [For any task schedule generated by the MSA in step 274, the step 282 of automated content management is performed, and also into a specific scheduled time window between times X and Y, in order for content to be processed and managed to send content to the video server 11 for operation during the scheduled time window (par. 157, Fig. 2 and 26). For example, instructing the video server 11 and/or the video server content manager 68 in step 290 to load and/or unload specific tapes to prepare for upcoming scheduled events (par. 159-161 and 168, Fig. 2 and 26)] and
automatically updating the content release plan [the MSA receives the schedule files from the schedule provider 84 in step 270. The MSA then validates, stores, and updates the schedule in step 272 (par. 152-153, Fig. 2 and 26)].
While Fransman discloses tracking the execution and status of the tasks (par. 151), Fransman does not explicitly disclose: the content release plan is updated based on one or more real-time statuses of the plurality of deployment tasks.
Godfrey teaches: updating the content release plan based on one or more real-time statuses of the plurality of deployment tasks [automatically modify the broadcast schedule based on the status of programs airing. For example, if a children's programming did not air as expected, the system can schedule the programming for another suitable time to compensate. The airing status is logged every few seconds (par. 57-61 and 71-72)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fransman and Godfrey before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer-implemented method of Fransman by incorporating the teaching of Godfrey such that the content release plan is updated based on one or more real-time statuses of the plurality of deployment tasks. The motivation for doing so would have been to take an appropriate remedial action, such as an automatic schedule change, when the task does not complete as planned, such as an issued that causes the programming to not air as expected (Godfrey – par. 61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Fransman and Godfrey to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Fransman and Godfrey teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1; Fransman further teaches: the plurality of line items further include one or more of: a descriptor, a removal flag, a content type, a release plan, a release plan name, and a status [the line items in the schedule include descriptors, such as Toy Story, a content type, such as preview, a name, and a release plan, such as the scheduled time of each program (par. 87, Fig. 9)].
Regarding claim 4, Fransman and Godfrey teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1; Fransman further teaches: parsing the plurality of line items comprises: building the deployment graph that includes deployment tasks to be used to execute the content release plan [The MSA creates in step 274, based on the schedule, a task schedule and milestones; that is, indicator events, times, and tasks which are used to gauge the operation of the master scheduler 20. Fig. 26 demonstrates a graph of various tasks, such as generating periodic tape loading instructions at step 284 for the video server 11 to be prepared to stream out the content (par. 153-154 and 159-161, Fig. 2 and 26)].
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Fransman and Godfrey teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1; Fransman further teaches: executing the content release plan by performing the plurality of deployment tasks comprises: determining based on a current time and the start times at which content items should be made available that a deployment task is ready for execution; and in response to determining that the deployment task is ready for execution, executing a deployment handler [The master schedule 20 includes a clock device for monitoring and updating a stored value of the current date and time. The task management system 76 monitors the current date and time and determines when a task is to be initiated before the latest start date in order to allow the task to have sufficient time to be completed before the deadline. Automated tasks are automatically performed (par. 166-168, Fig. 29)].
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Fransman and Godfrey teach the computer-implemented method of claim 5; Fransman further teaches: executing the deployment handler includes one or more of: initiating the deployment task, determining a status of the deployment task, and terminating the deployment task [automating the tasks and determining the status (par. 166-168, Fig. 27-29)].
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Fransman and Godfrey teach the computer-implemented method of claim 6; Fransman further teaches: initiating the deployment task comprises: making the content item identified in a line item available via a release platform [the task may involve loading the content to the video server 11 (par. 168-172, Fig. 26), such as toy story (Fig. 9)].
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Fransman and Godfrey teach the computer-implemented method of claim 7; Fransman further teaches: determining the status of the deployment task comprises: determining the status of an automation comprising one or more of: communicating with a release platform to determine if a first content item previously made available via the release platform is accessible; and communicating with the release platform to determine if a second content item previously removed via the release platform is not accessible [At appropriate loading times, the content is loaded into the video server 11. This loading step may be performed by transferring data to the video server. The status of the task is tracked including interacting with the video server 11, track the status, such as loaded or unloaded, and this may be checked at regular intervals to verify the content is loaded or unloaded (par. 140-145 and 148, Fig. 25-29)].
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Fransman and Godfrey teach the computer-implemented method of claim 6; Fransman further teaches: terminating the deployment task comprises: removing an additional content item previously made available via a release platform at a corresponding end time [According to the current schedule, the item of content may be scheduled to be unloaded from the video server 11 (par. 143-146, Fig. 25-29)].
Regarding claim 17, Fransman and Godfrey teach the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 12; Fransman and Godfrey further teach: executing the deployment handler includes storing information identifying the deployment task performed in an audit log [Fransman – the task management system 72 generates appropriate signals to the report generator 74 to have the task schedule and instructions reported. The task instructions are also used to track the progress of tasks according to the scheduled start and completion times of tasks, the actual start and completion times, any errors encountered, and the results of such tasks (par. 169, Fig. 26). Godfrey – determining compliance by generating an as-aired log (par. 41 and 56-57)].
Regarding claim 18, Fransman and Godfrey teach the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11; Fransman further teaches: the content release plan is one of a plurality of content release plans; and the plurality of content release plans are released simultaneously [There are different versions of the schedule (par. 109). A new and/or updated schedule and a previous schedule may be released to a validation process for comparison and ensuring there are no conflicts (par. 88, Fig. 2 and 10).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fransman et al. (US 2006/0179469) in view of Godfrey et al. (US 2020/0154160) and further in view of Gupta et al. (US 2014/0122161).
Regarding claim 2, Fransman and Godfrey teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1; Fransman further teaches: the content release plan represents a directed graph that expresses dependencies and flow direction between content sources, content destinations [Fig. 26 shows a graph represents the scheduled tasks with dependencies and flow direction between various sources and destinations in the graph (par. 152)].
Fransman and Godfrey do not explicitly disclose: the directed graph includes the plurality of line items in the content release plan.
Gupta teaches: the directed graph includes the plurality of line items in the content release plan [the components of the project deliverable are represented in the planning matrix, which shows the direction of the dependencies between sources and destinations and line items (par. 34-35 and 47-52, Fig. 1D)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fransman, Godfrey, and Gupta before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer-implemented method of Fransman and Godfrey by incorporating the teaching of Gupta such that the directed graph includes the plurality of line items in the content release plan. The motivation for doing so would have been to graphically represent the plan including a row or line for each deliverable (Gupta – par. 35), so that the plan can be easily visualized for consistent planning (par. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Fransman and Godfrey with Gupta to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fransman et al. (US 2006/0179469) in view of Godfrey et al. (US 2020/0154160) and further in view of Kikuchi (JP 2010-152622).
Regarding claim 10, Fransman and Godfrey teach the computer-implemented method of claim 5; Fransman further teaches: one or more of: initiating a deployment task simulation, determining a status of the deployment task simulation, and terminating the deployment task simulation [initiating a test on a test channel to validate that the correct content is loaded and may be played out of the video server 11 and decoded on an STB (par. 83 and 139)].
Fransman and Godfrey do not explicitly disclose: the one or more of: initiating a deployment task simulation, determining a status of the deployment task simulation, and terminating the deployment task simulation is included in executing the deployment handler.
Kikuchi teaches: the one or more of: initiating a deployment task simulation, determining a status of the deployment task simulation, and terminating the deployment task simulation is included in executing the deployment handler [state transition handler 8 activates the simulator task 9 (referred to as simulator task activation process) (page 6 and 9)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fransman, Godfrey, and Kikuchi before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer-implemented method of Fransman and Godfrey by incorporating the teaching of Kikuchi such that the one or more of: initiating a deployment task simulation, determining a status of the deployment task simulation, and terminating the deployment task simulation is included in executing the deployment handler. The motivation for doing so would have been to activate a simulator task automatically, such as based on a condition being met (Kikuchi – page 9). This process could be used to automatically initiate the testing of Fransman to improve efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Fransman and Godfrey with Kikuchi to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fransman et al. (US 2006/0179469) in view of Godfrey et al. (US 2020/0154160) and further in view of Mo et al. (US 2022/0295154).
Regarding claim 19, Fransman and Godfrey teach the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 18; Fransman further teaches: releasing the plurality of content release plans includes determining an amount of time needed to execute each of the plurality of content release plans [each schedule may be for a particular amount of time, such as daily, weekly, or monthly (par. 107-108)].
Fransman and Godfrey do not explicitly disclose: starting each of the plurality of content release plans at different times for simultaneous completion of the plurality of content release plans.
Mo teaches: starting each of the plurality of content release plans at different times for simultaneous completion of the plurality of content release plans [There may be different content delivery schedules for different geographic locations (e.g., separate content delivery schedules for Arlington, Va., and Charlottesville, Va.), and/or for different periods (e.g., a day, weekdays, weekends, a week, two weeks, a month, etc.), so for example if the schedule for Arlington is a one week schedule and the schedule for Charlottesville is a two week schedule, they could start at different times and end at the same time (par. 22 and 43, Fig. 1)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fransman, Godfrey, and Mo before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of Fransman and Godfrey by incorporating the teaching of Mo such that each of the plurality of content release plans start at different times for simultaneous completion of the plurality of content release plans. The motivation for doing so would have been to schedule the delivery of content items for different geographical regions and time periods (Mo – par. 1 and 22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Fransman and Godfrey with Mo 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