DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026, pg. 1, regarding the status of the claims and the examiner interview is hereby acknowledged.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026, pg. 1, regarding the Double Patenting Rejection is hereby acknowledged and persuasive based on the applicant’s filing of a terminal disclaimer. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026, pg. 1-22, regarding the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, the applicant argues, inter alia, the following:
In particular, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner that Millar teaches "merging the break cue data packets and the adjusted break cue data packets into a data stream; generating an adjusted provider stream by inserting the data stream into the provider stream as recited in claim 1. Instead of merging break cue data packets and the adjusted break cue data packets into a data stream, Millar just modifies the pts time field or the pts adjustment field in the message and passes it to the downstream device (see page 29, section 5.6 of Millar). Page 35 of Millar cited by the Office merely describes how "pts_adjustment" values are interpreted. Pages 43-55 of Millar cited by the Office indicate a duration of a program segment may be provided. There is no "merging the break cue data packets and the adjusted break cue data packets into a data stream" and then "generating an adjusted provider stream by inserting the data stream into the provider stream"… However, what reads on Millar' s disclosure is not relevant. What is relevant is what Miller teaches, and Miller does not teach or suggest "merging the break cue data
packets and the adjusted break cue data packets into a data stream; generating an adjusted provider stream by inserting the data stream into the provider stream as recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner that the Millar reference teaches "generating an adjusted provider stream by inserting the data stream into the provider stream" as recited in claim 1. As shown above, Millar does not teach including both the adjusted break cue data and the original break cue data in the data stream. Thus, since Millar does not disclose doing so, Millar cannot teach the fact that doing so may enable generation of an adjusted provider stream. Additionally, Millar does not teach generating the adjusted provider stream "by inserting the data stream into the provider stream" as recited in claim 1. A downstream device modifying the pts fields and passing it to a downstream device in Millar simply is not "inserting" a data stream into another existing data stream, but is instead just "passing" it.
The examiner respectfully disagrees wherein the rejection of independent claim 1 is based on a combination of references in addition to Millar. In response to the applicant’s arguments, on the issue of obviousness, the Court in KSR stated that the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the challenged claim's specific subject matter for a court can consider the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill would employ. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401. Additionally, the prior art need not involve the specific disclosure of every permutation or combination of an invention that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See id. at 420 disclosing a person of ordinary skill will often be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. “Common sense teaches, however, that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). More importantly, on the issue of obviousness in KSR, the Court discussed the subject matter of a patent which was a device combining two pre-existing elements wherein the two in combination did no more than they would in separate, sequential operation. The Court in KSR also stated that when a patent “simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform” and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious and the patent failed under 35 U.S.C. 103. See id. at 416-417 (citing Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 90 S. Ct. 305, 24 L. Ed. 2d 258 (1969)).
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The examiner notes that that applicant’s arguments do not appear to take into consideration the significant teaching value of Haberman. In the rejection of claim 1 cited Haberman Fig. 2 and col. 2:45-67 to col. 4: 1-12 and 5:6-67 to col. 6:1-55 – transmitting provider stream from a satellite headend wherein the system allows the headend to insert receiver instructions comprising splice information table including metadata messages to instruct the receiver on which addressable advertisements to show in an upcoming break with relative time position within the addressable advertising break. Whereas Haberman teaches a satellite headend without using the term transponder, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that transponders are typical components of a satellite headend transmitting provider streams.
The significant teaching value of Haberman (Col. 1:53-60) includes the American National Standards of Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers, Inc. (SCTE), Engineering Committee, Digital Video Subcommittee, developed a standard that supports the splicing of MPEG-2 streams for the purpose of Digital Program Insertion (DPI). The examiner is merely elaborating on the teachings of Haberman when considering the accepted Standards referenced therein. For example, Haberman Fig. 2 and col. 2:45-67 to col. 4: 1-12 and 5:6-67 to col. 6:1-55 – transmitting provider stream from a satellite headend wherein the system allows the headend to insert receiver instructions comprising splice information table including metadata messages to instruct the receiver on which addressable advertisements to show in an upcoming break with relative time position within the addressable advertising break. Therefore, there it is clear that Haberman discloses that provider streams include break cue data packets having time stamps corresponding to breaks in a media program in the provider system which the applicant’s arguments to not appear to dispute. Whereas the applicant appears to disagree with the findings of Millar, Haberman Haberman does disclose adjusting the time reference with respect to when an advertisement is presented. For example, Haberman discloses “pts_adjustment” in col. 7 Table 1. More importantly, when reviewing the pts_adjustment as disclosed in the American National Standards information referenced above, the SCTE discloses the following in Section 5.5, 7.2.1, and 7.1:
PNG
media_image1.png
143
999
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
357
916
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
157
939
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that the claims recites a rearrangement of elements disclosed by Haberman because, in the applicant’s independent claim 1, after receiving a provider stream, then any device that alters the timing information is a device that passes the cue messages to a downstream device (e.g., satellite transponder or a client device). Furthermore, the American National Standards referenced above discloses sending a separate packet with new data without canceling the old message via a cue message (i.e., the original break cue data packets and an adjusted break cue data packets). Additionally, whereas the applicant claims two separate packets (i.e., break cue data packet and the adjusted break cue data packets into a data stream), the applicant appears to argue a corollary to KSR citing Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. Stated differently, on the issue of obviousness in KSR, the Court discussed the subject matter of a patent which was a device combining two pre-existing elements wherein the two in combination did no more than they would in separate, sequential operation (in the present applicant the applicant appears to be doing the inverse (i.e., separating) instead of combining two pre-exisiting elements). Similarly important is that it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichmena, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Stated differently, even if Haberman only discloses that the original packet can be modified, the mere fact of generating a second packet that if combined did not more than they would in separate, sequential operation is obvious as evidenced by the American National Standards incorporated by reference in the Haberman disclosure.
The examiner’s analysis is further supported when viewed in light of the limitations of claim 6 which parallel the limitations of claim 1. In claim 6, the applicant has clearly recited that the adjusted break cue data packets comprise an offset value which is rendered obvious in view of Haberman teaching a pts_adjustment.
PNG
media_image4.png
206
670
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, when considering the significant teaching value of Haberman in view of the teachings of Millar and DiLorenzo, the applicant’s claims are obvious. The examiner incorporates the teachings of Millar and DiLorenzo discussed in the rejection of the claims herein.
For at least the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is obvious in view of the cited prior art and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding independent claim 6 and 9, although varying in scope, the obviousness of claims 6 and 9 is apparent at least from the above discussion regarding claim 1.
Claims 2-5 and 7-8 depend on claims 1 and 6, respectively, and thus, are also not patentable in view of the cited prior art for at least the foregoing reasons and further for the additional obvious features respectively recited therein.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 9-15, the claims are directed to a system comprising a filter, a cue adjuster, and a packet merger as supported in the original specification, pg. 10, filed 12/20/2019. The examiner is interpreting the filter as structure and the applicant’s specification has further disclosed the filter is coupled to the cue adjuster and a packet merger in Fig. 2 that is integrated in processor 114 which are also interpreted as structure coupled to the filter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberman; Seth et al. US 8763029 B1 (hereinafter Haberman) and in further view of Millar, Keith WO 2011/001207A9 (hereafter Millar) and in further view of DiLorenzo; Mark US 20140020013 A1 (hereafter DiLorenzo) and in further view of "Digital Program Insertion Cueing Message for Cable," Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers, Engineering Committee, Digital Video Subcommittee, American National Standard ANSI/SCTE 35, 37 pages (2004) (hereafter SCTE Standards).
Regarding claim 1, “a method comprising: receiving a provider stream including break cue data packets having time stamps corresponding to breaks in a media program in the provider stream; generating adjusted break cue data packets by adjusting time stamps of the break cue data packets; merging the break cue data packets and the adjusted break cue data packets into a data stream; generating an adjusted provider stream by inserting the data stream into the provider stream; and transmitting the adjusted provider stream from a satellite transponder” Haberman teaches all the elements of claim 1 except “generating adjusted break cue data packets by adjusting time stamps of the break cue data packets; merging the break cue data packets and the adjusted break cue data packets into a data stream; generating an adjusted provider stream by inserting the data stream into the provider stream” Haberman Fig. 2 and col. 2:45-67 to col. 4: 1-12 and 5:6-67 to col. 6:1-55 – transmitting provider stream from a satellite headend wherein the system allows the headend to insert receiver instructions comprising splice information table including metadata messages to instruct the receiver on which addressable advertisements to show in an upcoming break with relative time position within the addressable advertising break. Whereas Haberman teaches a satellite headend without using the term transponder, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that transponders are typical components of a satellite headend transmitting provider streams.
With respect to the deficiency of Haberman (i.e., generating adjusted break cue data packets by adjusting time stamps of the break cue data packets), in an analogous art, Millar teaches a pts_adjustment (corresponds to generating adjusted break cue data packets by adjusting time stamps of the break cue data packets) and other forms of adjusting the duration of a break by inserting modified splice information data by adjusting time stamps of original break cue data packets and combining the original break cue data packets and the adjusted break cue data packets into a data stream (See Millar pg. 7:18-34 to pg. 10:1-34 – splice info section comprises signaling data and timestamp data for breaks/advertisements including cueing messages; pg. 43 splice time when modified by pts_adjustment specifies the time of the splice point and pts_time when modified by pts_adjustment represents the time of the intended splice point; pg. 29 section 5.6 – messages may be modified by any downstream device that forwards the in-stream to downstream devices including modify the pts_adjustment field; pg. 35-36 describing pts_adjustment A 33 bit unsigned integer that appears in the clear and that shall be used by a splicing device as an offset to be added to the (sometimes) encrypted pts time field(s) throughout this message to obtain the intended splice time(s). When this field has a zero value, then the pts time field(s) shall be used without an offset. Normally, the creator of a cueing message will place a zero value into this field. This adjustment value is the means by which an upstream device, which restamps pcr/pts/dts, may convey to the splicing device the means by which to convert the pts time field of the message to a newly imposed time domain. It is intended that the first device that restamps pcr/pts/dts and that passes the cueing message will insert a value into the pts adjustment field, which is the delta time between this device's input time domain and its output time domain. All subsequent devices, which also restamp pcr/pts/dts, may further alter the pts adjustment field by adding their delta time to the field's existing delta time and placing the result back in the pts adjustment field. Upon each alteration of the pts adjustment field, the altering device must recalculate and update the CRC 32 field. See also pg. 53-55 segmentation data for breaks allows for adjusting break data wherein a value supplied in the new message is an update to the overall duration of the program Segmentation duration wherein such that an original segmentation duration which a timestamp of a break can be extended using a Runover Planned or Runover Unplanned message which would also correspond on the applicant’s broad claim limitation (i.e., generating adjusted break cue data packets by adjusting time stamps of the break cue data packets). Regarding merging the break cue data packets and the adjusted break cue data packets into a data stream; generating an adjusted provider stream by inserting the data stream into the provider stream”, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the benefit of utilizing a packet that carries/transports adjusted break cue data packets in addition to the original break cue data packets because generates a whole new packet to transmit the same information that reads on Millar’s disclosure would be obvious. Stated differently, Millar teaches a simple way to utilize a packet reserved to modification to include/indicate when offset data has been added to modify time stamps corresponding to breaks in the media program and adding a packet to include/indicate when offset data has been added to modify time stamps is obvious. The fact that Millar modifies the information of an original break cue packet and includes the modified information to be transmitted to downstream devices would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as repackaging the original packet with new, adjusted data and corresponds to merging the original data with modified/adjusted/new data. See Millar pg. 53-55 segmentation data for breaks allows for adjusting break data wherein a value supplied in the new message is an update to the overall duration of the program Segmentation duration wherein such that an original segmentation duration which a timestamp of a break can be extended using a Runover Planned or Runover Unplanned message which would also correspond on the applicant’s broad claim limitation because the addition of any new packet to be merged with original break cue data is an update to the messages.
More importantly, Millar incorporates the SCTE ANSI/SCTE 35 2007 Digital Program Insertion Cueing Message for Cable, wherein pg. 24, discloses that a “Program: A collection of video, audio, and data PID streams that share a common program number….” In other words, the SCTE ANSI/SCTE 35 2007 Digital Program Insertion Cueing Message for Cable already teaches that a “Program” comprises video, audio, and data PID streams” and wherein the PID streams comprise adjusted break cue data packets. As such, the applicant appears to merely be claiming retransmitting a “Program” (as defined by said SCTE ANSI/SCTE 35 2007) with modified “messages” as discussed by Examiner in the rejection of claim 1 because applicant’s claim recites a “provider stream” understood as a “Program” (“receiving a provider stream including break cue data packets having time stamps corresponding to breaks in media program in the provider stream…” and then claims “merging the break cue data packets and the adjusted break cue data packets into a data stream; generating an adjusted provider stream by inserting data stream into the provider stream; and transmitting the adjusted provider stream from a satellite transponder”). Therefore, the prior art teaches an up stream device (i.e., up stream from a client device) is able to receive a “Program” (i.e., “Program: A collection of video, audio, and data PID streams….”) and modify said Program with adjusted break cue data packets before transmitting the modified “Program” (i.e., a program comprising adjusted time stamps of the break cue data packets) towards a receiving client device.
As discussed above with respect to the teachings of Millar, the fact that Millar modifies the information of an original break cue packet and includes the modified information to be transmitted to downstream devices would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as packaging the original packet with new, adjusted data and corresponds to merging the original data with modified/adjusted/new data. See Millar pg. 53-55 segmentation data for breaks allows for adjusting break data wherein a value supplied in the new message is an update to the overall duration of the program Segmentation duration wherein such that an original segmentation duration which a timestamp of a break can be extended using a Runover Planned or Runover Unplanned message which would also correspond on the applicant’s broad claim limitation because the addition of any new packet to be merged with original break cue data is an update to the messages. In clarifying how the teachings of Millar are understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in an analogous art, DiLorenzo teaches receiving a cue message comprising time stamp information and updating the cue message to include offset timing information or may be included in a presentation timestamp adjustment, or alternatively, or in addition, the offset may be provided as a timestamp or otherwise used to modify a timestamp associated with the cue message. (see DiLorezo para 42-43, 58-60 – disclosing that offset timing generator adds, modifies or otherwise updates offset information; see also para 39 wherein out of band cue messages/break descriptor messages are delivered in the same or similar format as they are when delivered in-band; see also para 40 Each break descriptor may contain an ID that matches the ID in a cue message. These IDs allow the ad decision engine 142 to match a cue message to a break descriptor.). See also claim 1 wherein a cue message is received and then generating a cue message comprising one or more of (i) the determined data stream offset and (ii) a timestamp associated with the generated cue message and modified by the determined data stream offset. The examiner takes note that DiLorezo, unlike Millar, does not disclose a pre-generated packet that is part of the original provider stream, that will be used to included time adjustment data such that the new cue message generated by DiLorezo would need to include a packet with the adjusted break cue data packets and associated with an ID to match to the corresponding stream data. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that cue messages are transmitted as packets are part of the provider stream in-band or out of band and typically comprise an ID to match with the program content that it is associated with.
As discussed above with respect to the term “transponder” not mentioned in Haberman or DiLorezo but as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to refer collectively to a satellite transmitter/receiver subsystem, Millar pg. 29:1-5 and section 5.6 discloses the invention comprises a Satellite transmitter/receiver, remultiplexer.
The motivation to modify Haberman, Millar, and DiLorezo is further evidenced by SCTE Standards. As discussed above, Haberman discloses that provider streams include break cue data packets having time stamps corresponding to breaks in a media program in the provider system which the applicant’s arguments to not appear to dispute. Haberman does disclose adjusting the time reference with respect to when an advertisement is presented. For example, Haberman discloses “pts_adjustment” in col. 7 Table 1. More importantly, when reviewing the pts_adjustment as disclosed in the SCTE Standards information referenced above, the SCTE discloses the following in Section 5.5, 7.2.1, and 7.1.
PNG
media_image1.png
143
999
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
357
916
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
157
939
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein the applicant’s independent claim 1 recites 1) receiving a provider stream… 2) transmitting the adjusted provider stream from a satellite transponder, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that the claims recites a rearrangement of elements disclosed by Haberman, Millar, and DiLorezo because, in the applicant’s independent claim 1, after receiving a provider stream, then any device that alters the timing information is a device that passes the cue messages to a downstream device (e.g., satellite transponder or a client device). The SCTE Standards referenced above discloses sending a separate packet with new data without canceling the old message via a cue message (i.e., the original break cue data packets and an adjusted break cue data packets) but also states that upon each alternation of the pts_adjustment field, the altering device must recalculate the CRC_32 field which is interpreted as encoding a new packet with the pts_data. However, based on the teachings of Millar, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that if a downstream device accesses a cueing message to include a pts_adjustment modified packet, then the downstream device would be able to transmit the original break message timing data in addition to the pts_adjustment packet in the same datastream (or any other packet that adjusts the duration of the break message). Additionally, whereas the applicant claims two separate packets (i.e., break cue data packet and the adjusted break cue data packets into a data stream), the applicant’s claims evidence a corollary to KSR citing Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. Stated differently, on the issue of obviousness in KSR, the Court discussed the subject matter of a patent which was a device combining two pre-existing elements wherein the two in combination did no more than they would in separate, sequential operation (in the present applicant the applicant appears to be doing the inverse (i.e., separating) instead of combining two pre-existing elements). Similarly important is that it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichmena, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Stated differently, even if Haberman only discloses that the original packet can be modified, the mere fact of generating a second packet that if combined did not more than they would in separate, sequential operation is obvious as evidenced by the American National Standards incorporated by reference in the Haberman disclosure.
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Haberman’s invention for transmitting provider stream from a satellite headend to enable the headend to insert receiver instructions within timing data comprising splice information table including metadata messages to instruct the receiver on which addressable advertisements to show in an upcoming break with relative time position within the addressable advertising break by further incorporating known elements of Millar’s invention for enabling a provider to generate an adjusted provider stream by inserting modified splice information data by generating a packet for adjusting time stamps of original break cue data packets and combining the original break cue data packets and the adjusted break cue data packets into a data stream in order to enable providers to further modify advertisement avails with offset regional content. It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Haberman and Millar by further incorporating known elements of DiLorenzo for receiving a program stream cue message then generating a cue message comprising one or more of (i) the determined data stream offset and (ii) a timestamp associated with the generated cue message and modified by the determined data stream offset to be included as part of a packetized data pertaining to a related program stream and utilized to splicing advertisements because the combination of known elements for modifying cue messages is known to typically comprise the addition, modification, or updating of the cue message to include offset data to synchronize content associated with a program stream and because the combination and rearrangement of known elements would enable providers to further modify advertisement avails with offset regional content as taught by SCTE Standards.
Regarding claim 4, “wherein the break cue data packets include SCTE-35 cue tones” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 wherein Haberman teaches col. 6:15-55. See also Millar section 5.3, 8.3.1 an identifier is intended to replicate the functionality of the cue tone system used in analog systems to ad insertion. See also DiLorenzo para 34 teaches “…the cue messages may correspond or otherwise adhere to the Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE) 35 standard, which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety for all that it teaches and for all purposes” which is understood to comprise cue tones.
Regarding claim 5, “further comprising receiving an offset value corresponding to an error in the time stamps of the break cue data packets, wherein adjusting time stamps from the break cue data packets includes adjusting the time stamps based on the offset value” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claim 1-3 and 7 based on the combination of the teachings of Haberman, Millar, DiLorenzo and SCTE Standards wherein Haberman further taches col. 6:3-14 and col. 7 Table 2 disclosing offset parameters and wherein the marker messages of the present invention provide receivers with an approach for error correction. For example, marker messages may be inserted with a sub-second frequency (e.g., every 100 milliseconds). When the receiver is instructed to switch to addressable advertisement A that is in another transport stream from the stream that is carrying the television program and the addressable advertisement is not present, the receiver detects the lack of incoming marker messages and returns to the stream carrying the television program almost instantaneously as opposed to showing black screens for the remainder of the advertising break. See also DiLorenzo claim 1 wherein a cue message is received and then generating a cue message comprising one or more of (i) the determined data stream offset and (ii) a timestamp associated with the generated cue message and modified by the determined data stream offset.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Wherein claim 9 further recites the limitation of a “filter”, Millar of record discussed in the rejection of claim 1 further teaches pg. 29:1-5 wherein the claimed “filter” corresponds to Millar’s filtering process (i.e., If the cue identifier descriptor is utilized, the splicing or multiplexing device may use that information to be more selective of the PIDs on which it will act. Some possible reasons for utilizing multiple PIDs for this message include selective delivery of cue messages for different tiers of advertising or for separating cue messages from segmentation messages. The delivery equipment (Satellite transmitter/receiver, remultiplexer) may PID filter the stream to only allow one or a small number of the PIDs to be passed in-stream.). The limitations with respect to a cue adjuster and a packet merger as rejected as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 wherein the combination of Haberman, Millar, DiLorenzo and SCTE Standards render obvious that packets are adjusted, combined, remultiplexed to a PID Stream with the same PID. More particularly, DiLorenzo teaches extracting the timing information from cue messages in order to determine offset data (see para 38-43 teaching extracting/filtering timing data from cue messages in order to determine correct offset data utilized for splicing information). With respect to a break data server, Millar teaches receiving devices comprise servers and wherein receiving devices act upon splice information (See section 7.1 and pg. 24; see also pg. 4:27-34 to pg. 5:1-2 combination of satellite-computer network wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that a Satellite receiver comprises receiving devices such as servers). A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that a Satellite-computer network comprises satellite transponders as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and further incorporate receiving devices operating in a computer network to receive original cue data packets, adjusted break cue data packets, and break description data as discussed in the rejection of claims 1.
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Haberman’s invention for transmitting provider stream from a satellite headend to enable the headend to insert receiver instructions within timing data comprising splice information table including metadata messages to instruct the receiver on which addressable advertisements to show in an upcoming break with relative time position within the addressable advertising break by further incorporating known elements of Millar’s invention for enabling a provider to generate an adjusted provider stream by inserting modified splice information data by generating a packet for adjusting time stamps of original break cue data packets and combining the original break cue data packets and the adjusted break cue data packets into a data stream in order to enable providers to further modify advertisement avails with offset regional content. It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Haberman and Millar by further incorporating known elements of DiLorenzo for receiving a program stream cue message then generating a cue message comprising one or more of (i) the determined data stream offset and (ii) a timestamp associated with the generated cue message and modified by the determined data stream offset to be included as part of a packetized data pertaining to a related program stream and utilized to splicing advertisements because the combination of known elements for modifying cue messages is known to typically comprise the addition, modification, or updating of the cue message to include offset data to synchronize content associated with a program stream and because the combination and rearrangement of known elements would enable providers to further modify advertisement avails with offset regional content as taught by SCTE Standards.
Regarding claim 10, “further comprising multiplexer configured to receive the data stream from the packet merger and to generate an adjusted provider stream by inserting the data stream into the provider stream” Wherein claim 10 further recites the limitation of a “multiplexer”, Millar of record discussed in the rejection of claim 1 further teaches pg. 29:1-5 wherein the claimed “multiplexer” corresponds to Millar’s Satellite transmitter/receiver, remultiplexer process (i.e., If the cue identifier descriptor is utilized, the splicing or multiplexing device may use that information to be more selective of the PIDs on which it will act. Some possible reasons for utilizing multiple PIDs for this message include selective delivery of cue messages for different tiers of advertising or for separating cue messages from segmentation messages. The delivery equipment (Satellite transmitter/receiver, remultiplexer) may PID filter the stream to only allow one or a small number of the PIDs to be passed in-stream.) The limitations with respect to a cue adjuster and a packet merger as rejected as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 wherein the combination of Haberman, Millar, DiLorenzo and SCTE Standards. See also DiLorenzo as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 wherein DiLorezo para 42-43, 58-60 – disclosing that offset timing generator adds, modifies or otherwise updates offset information; see also para 39 wherein out of band cue messages/break descriptor messages are delivered in the same or similar format as they are when delivered in-band; see also para 40 Each break descriptor may contain an ID that matches the ID in a cue message. These IDs allow the ad decision engine 142 to match a cue message to a break descriptor.). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that in-band data is typically multiplexed with a program stream. Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Haberman’s invention for transmitting provider stream from a satellite headend to enable the headend to insert receiver instructions within timing data comprising splice information table including metadata messages to instruct the receiver on which addressable advertisements to show in an upcoming break with relative time position within the addressable advertising break by further incorporating known elements of Millar’s invention for enabling a provider to filter stream packets to generate an adjusted provider stream by inserting modified splice information data by generating a packet for adjusting time stamps of original break cue data packets and combining the original break cue data packets and the adjusted break cue data packets into a data stream as disclosed in DiLorenzo in order to enable providers to further modify advertisement avails with offset regional content as taught by SCTE Standards.
Regarding claim 11, “wherein the cue adjuster receives an offset value corresponding to an error in the time stamps of the break cue data packets, wherein the cue adjuster adjusts the time stamps from the break cue data packets based on the offset value” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 wherein Haberman col. 6:3-14 and col. 7 Table 2 disclosing offset parameters and wherein the marker messages of the present invention provide receivers with an approach for error correction. For example, marker messages may be inserted with a sub-second frequency (e.g., every 100 milliseconds). When the receiver is instructed to switch to addressable advertisement A that is in another transport stream from the stream that is carrying the television program and the addressable advertisement is not present, the receiver detects the lack of incoming marker messages and returns to the stream carrying the television program almost instantaneously as opposed to showing black screens for the remainder of the advertising break.
Regarding claim 12, “wherein the packet merger is configured to receive the adjusted break cue data packets from the break data server” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 wherein with respect to the claimed servers, Millar teaches receiving devices comprise servers and wherein receiving devices act upon splice information (See section 7.1 and pg. 24; see also pg. 4:27-34 to pg. 5:1-2 combination of satellite-computer network wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that a Satellite receiver comprises receiving devices such as servers). A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that a Satellite-computer network comprises satellite transponders as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and further incorporate receiving devices operating in a computer network to receive original cue data packets, adjusted break cue data packets, and break description data as discussed in the rejection of claims 1. More particularly, DiLorenzo teaches extracting the timing information from cue messages in order to determine offset data and wherein the new cue message data is provided by a server identifying break data (see para 38-43 teaching extracting/filtering timing data from cue messages in order to determine correct offset data utilized for splicing information).
Regarding claim 13, “wherein the packet merger is configured to receive break description data packets from the break data server and to merge the break description data packets into the data stream” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 wherein with respect to the claimed servers, Millar teaches receiving devices comprise servers and wherein receiving devices act upon splice information (See section 7.1 and pg. 24; see also pg. 4:27-34 to pg. 5:1-2 combination of satellite-computer network wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that a Satellite receiver comprises receiving devices such as servers). More particularly, DiLorenzo teaches extracting the timing information from cue messages in order to determine offset data and wherein the new cue message data is provided by a server identifying break data (see para 38-43 teaching extracting/filtering timing data from cue messages in order to determine correct offset data utilized for splicing information). DiLorezo para 42-43, 58-60 – disclosing that offset timing generator adds, modifies or otherwise updates offset information; see also para 39 wherein out of band cue messages/break descriptor messages are delivered in the same or similar format as they are when delivered in-band; see also para 40 Each break descriptor may contain an ID that matches the ID in a cue message. These IDs allow the ad decision engine 142 to match a cue message to a break descriptor.). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that in-band data is typically multiplexed with a program stream. DiLorezo para 42-43, 58-60 – disclosing that offset timing generator adds, modifies or otherwise updates offset information; see also para 39 wherein out of band cue messages/break descriptor messages are delivered in the same or similar format as they are when delivered in-band; see also para 40 Each break descriptor may contain an ID that matches the ID in a cue message. These IDs allow the ad decision engine 142 to match a cue message to a break descriptor.). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that in-band data is typically multiplexed with a program stream.
Regarding claim 14, “wherein the break cue data packets, the adjusted break cue data packets, and the break description data packets have a same packet identification in the data stream” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 wherein Millar pg. 23 teaches a PID, PID Stream and Program comprising a packet identifier and all the packets with the same PID within a transport stream. See also Millar Section 5.3, 7.1 stating that the standard establishes that the splice information table is carried on a per-program basis in one or more PID stream(s) with a designated stream type. As such, wherein the combination of prior art as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 render obvious the transmission of data packets in the same data stream, then a person of ordinary skill in the art would have seen the obvious benefit of utilizing the PID and PID Stream for all the packets in the same data stream. See also DiLorezo para 42-43, 58-60 – disclosing that offset timing generator adds, modifies or otherwise updates offset information; see also para 39 wherein out of band cue messages/break descriptor messages are delivered in the same or similar format as they are when delivered in-band; see also para 40 Each break descriptor may contain an ID that matches the ID in a cue message. These IDs allow the ad decision engine 142 to match a cue message to a break descriptor.). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that in-band data is typically multiplexed with a program stream.
Regarding claim 15, “wherein the break cue data packets and the adjusted break cue data packets have a same packet identification and different table identifications” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 wherein Millar Section 5.3, 7.1, 7.2 stating that the standard establishes that the splice information table is carried on a per-program basis in one or more PID stream(s) with a designated stream type. As such, wherein the combination of prior art as disclosed in the rejection of claims 1 render obvious the transmission of data packets in the same data stream using one or more PIDs in the same stream to update the PIDs with a table for each break cue data packets, break description data, and adjusted cue data packets (see Table 7-1 disclosing a table_id with a pts_adjustment that is interpreted as enabling the updating of Table_id information) that is understood to be transmitted with the same PID Stream identifier and updated as necessary in the same data stream as discussed in the rejection of claims 1, then a person of ordinary skill in the art would have seen the obvious benefit of utilizing the table_id, as being updatable, and a PID and PID Stream for all the original break cue data packets and adjusted/updated/and added packets with the same identifiers in the same data stream. DiLorezo para 42-43, 58-60 – disclosing that offset timing generator adds, modifies or otherwise updates offset information; see also para 39 wherein out of band cue messages/break descriptor messages are delivered in the same or similar format as they are when delivered in-band; see also para 40 Each break descriptor may contain an ID that matches the ID in a cue message. These IDs allow the ad decision engine 142 to match a cue message to a break descriptor.). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that in-band data is typically multiplexed with a program stream.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberman; Seth et al. US 8763029 B1 (hereinafter Haberman) and in further view of Millar, Keith WO 2011/001207A9 (hereafter Millar) and in further view of DiLorenzo; Mark US 20140020013 A1 (hereafter DiLorenzo) and in further view of "Digital Program Insertion Cueing Message for Cable," Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers, Engineering Committee, Digital Video Subcommittee, American National Standard ANSI/SCTE 35, 37 pages (2004) (hereafter SCTE Standards) and in further view of Lykes; Randy et al. US 20200204279 A1 (hereafter Lykes).
Regarding claim 2, “wherein the break cue data packets have a first table identification, the break description data packets have a second table identification, and the adjusted break cue data packets have a third table identification” the combination of Haberman, Millar, DiLorenzo, and SCTE Standards disclose utilizing tables identified in a PMT (e.g., SCTE Standards splice information table Section 5.2, 7.1, 7.4, Millar pg. 1 EIT, pg. 8 splice information table but do not disclose a third table as claimed. In an analogous art, Lykes para 76-83 discloses cue messages are transmitted in a separate table and further discloses each data packet has 188 bytes, with 4 bytes dedicated to a header, and 184 bytes allocated to the payload. The System Information Standard (SCTE 57) describes a number of tables and messages that can be delivered in transport packets that are identified by either the Network PID or the Program Map Table PID.
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Haberman, Millar, DiLorenzo, and SCTE Standards for transmitting provider stream from a satellite headend to enable the headend to insert receiver instructions within timing data comprising splice information table including metadata messages to instruct the receiver on which addressable advertisements to show in an upcoming break with relative time position within the addressable advertising break comprising tables (e.g., EIT and splice information table) by further incorporating known elements of Lykes invention for associating a plurality of tables related to advertisement splicing comprising metadata for performing the splicing of ad content including cue data and updated/adjusted timing information for splicing.
Claims 3, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberman; Seth et al. US 8763029 B1 (hereinafter Haberman) and in further view of Millar, Keith WO 2011/001207A9 (hereafter Millar) and in further view of "Digital Program Insertion Cueing Message for Cable," Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers, Engineering Committee, Digital Video Subcommittee, American National Standard ANSI/SCTE 35, 37 pages (2004) (hereafter SCTE Standards) and in further view of Lykes; Randy et al. US 20200204279 A1 (hereafter Lykes) and in further view of Konig, Richard et al. US 20040189873 A1 (hereafter Konig).
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the first table identification is selected to be read by commercial satellite receivers, wherein the second and third table identifications are selected to be read by residential satellite receivers” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-2 wherein Haberman, Millar, and SCTE Standards teach all the elements of claim 3 except referencing the terms commercial and residential satellite receivers. Haberman teaches col. 9:6-67 – The commercial feeder is the transport stream that contains the addressable advertisements (or segments). It should also be noted that the frequency for the television program may be different from the frequency for the commercial feeder, or it may be the same (depending on whether the addressable advertisements are carried in separate transport streams or not; the system provides the client_trigger message as a timing message for the receiver to determine when to switch to an addressable advertisement. It should be noted that this embodiment includes two different types of timing messages: one to instruct the receiver to change frequency to an addressable advertisement (client_trigger), and one to instruct the receiver to switch streams within the same transport stream to an addressable advertisement or segment (client_splice). The client_trigger message is generally inserted at a predetermined time before the advertisement (e.g., two seconds before, five seconds before, etc.).
More importantly, Millar teaches utilizing tiered splicing for different customers (Section 6.2.2). Although, Millar does not use the term commercial and residential satellite receivers, the ability of Millar to target different customers would be interpreted as an intended use if specifying “commercial and residential satellite receiver.” Millar pg. 29:1-5 teaches that if the cue identifier descriptor is utilized, the splicing or multiplexing device may use that information to be more selective of the PIDs on which it will act…”Some possible reasons for utilizing multiple PIDs for this message include selective delivery of cue messages for different tiers of advertising or for separating cue messages from segmentation messages.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer, and appreciate the obvious benefit of addressing specific PIDs to specific users to transmit specific tables which transmitted using PID Streams as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-8.
More importantly, SCTE Standards teaches transmitting table identification to identify break description data packets and identify the adjusted break cue data packets. However, Haberman, Millar, and SCTE Standards do not disclose why a commercial satellite receiver and a residential satellite receiver obtain different tables.
Equally important is that Lykes para 45 teaches cue message is formed in accord with SCTE 35 and provides information regarding the location of the ad spot(s) in the video stream, such as the time point the ad spot starts in the video stream and the duration, although different providers may generate different formats for the cue message. For example, an SCTE 35 cue message is usually a binary message encoded in Base64, and consists of a data packet with a number of fields that are used to describe attributes of the cue message. Although process 300 addresses a single cue message, in reality, a large number of cue messages are received in multiple programming feeds from multiple content providers.
In an analogous art, Konig recognizes why a commercial satellite receiver and a residential satellite receiver obtain different splicing content wherein Konig para 47 teaches FIG. 2 illustrates a user relationship in which a broadcaster 200 transmits programming from a broadcaster uplink facility 202 through a satellite 204. Signals transmitted by the broadcaster 200 can be received by a plurality of locations, including a pub 206 run by pub owner 208 or a hotel 210 operated by hotel operator 212. Although two types of commercial establishments are illustrated, the invention is not limited to those commercial establishments nor is it limited only to commercial establishments. The invention can also be deployed for use in a residential environment. (Similarly Millar teaches targeting residential customers with specific advertising). Konig para 162 teaches an optional time delay may exist between when a frame is broadcast universally and when that frame is actually displayed using any of the configurations described herein. The reason for the time delay is that when performing a manual detection, a slight delay is experienced before a human identifies an advertisement (or other segment) in a broadcast. A delay may also exist using automated detection as well while frames are analyzed and matched. In addition, there may be a delay in receiving signals across the computer communications network. Thus, it is desirable to maintain a slight delay (e.g., 5 seconds) between the current output of video (whether a replacement segment is being output or not) and the original signal so that there will be no change to the non-advertising content. This will offset any delay in detecting segments and the delay should typically be unknown to viewers. A temporary storage (such as flash memory, RAM, or a hard drive) can be used to store the buffer of video and audio data during the delay period, and video/audio output is actually generated from this buffer. This memory buffer may exist inside the detection/replacement device. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that based on the teachings of Konig, a commercial satellite receiver would not receive the same splicing information with a presentation time stamp adjusting as Konig teaches it is desirable to maintain a slight delay (e.g., 5 seconds) between the current output of video (whether a replacement segment is being output or not) and the original signal so that there will be no change to the non-advertising content and this will offset any delay in detecting segments and the delay should typically be unknown to viewers.
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Haberman’s invention for transmitting provider stream from a satellite headend to enable the headend to insert receiver instructions within timing data comprising splice information table including metadata messages to instruct the receiver on which addressable advertisements to show in an upcoming break with relative time position within the addressable advertising break by further incorporating known elements of Millar’s invention for enabling a provider to generate an adjusted provider stream by inserting modified splice information data into tables for a receiver, by adjusting time stamps of original break cue data packets and combining the original break cue data packets and the adjusted break cue data packets into a data stream/or a separate data stream in order to enable providers to further modify advertisement avails with offset regional content as taught by SCTE Standards. It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Haberman, Millar, SCTE Standards, and Lykes by further incorporating known elements of Konig for transmitting different splicing information to commercial satellite receiver and a residential satellite receiver because Konig teaches that for the commercial satellite receiver it is desirable to maintain a slight delay (e.g., 5 seconds) between the current output of video (whether a replacement segment is being output or not) and the original signal so that there will be no change to the non-advertising content and this will offset any delay in detecting segments and the delay should typically be unknown to viewers.
Regarding method of claim 6, the claim is grouped and rejected with the method claims 1-5 because the steps of the method claim 6 comprises the elements of claims 1-5 and are met by the disclosure of the apparatus and methods of the reference(s) as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-5 and because the steps of the method are easily converted into elements of computer implemented methods by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, “wherein the television provider transport stream is an MPEG transport stream” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claim 1-6 wherein the Haberman, Millar, DiLorenzo, and SCTE Standards, Lykes, and Konig referenced above in the rejection of claims 1-6 renders obvious the multiplexing break cue data packets and adjusted break cue data packets for transmission to downstream devices and wherein Millar pg. 5:1-34 to pg. 6:1-19 teaches a headend for implementing the disclosed invention relating to updating splicing information data and discloses the transmission of the claimed content using MPEG. See also Lykes para 60 and 75.
Regarding claim 8, “wherein the television provider transport stream includes video data packets and audio data packets” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claim 1-6 wherein the Haberman, Millar, DiLorenzo, and SCTE Standards, Lykes, Konig referenced above in the rejection of claims 1-6 renders obvious the multiplexing break cue data packets and adjusted break cue data packets for transmission to downstream devices and wherein Millar pg. 5:1-34 to pg. 8:1-15 teaches a headend for implementing the disclosed invention relating to updating splicing information data and discloses the transmission of the claimed content using MPEG for transmitting video and audio. See also Lykes para 60.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ALFONSO CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3950. The examiner can normally be reached on generally Monday to Friday 10am-6pm (with alternative Fridays.
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 on 571-270-3950. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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
Prosecution Insights