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 12/8/2025. Claims 1, 6, 9, 14 and 16 are amended. Claim 8 is cancelled. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being patentable over Riegel (of record) in view of O’Malley (of record), Asarikuniyil (of record), and Riedel et al. (US20170289597, hereinafter Riedel).
Regarding claims 1, 5-6, 9, 13-14, 16 and 20, Riegel discloses a system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory (see Riegel, at least at Figs. 1 and 7, and related text), the one or more processors configured to cause the system to:
receive a programming schedule (i.e., shared content information, see Riegel, at least at [0015]-[0017], [0043], and other related text) that lists at least a first media asset associated with a first data source (see Riegel, at least at [0012], [0022], [0025]-[0026], [0037], [0055], and other related text) and a second media asset associated with a second data source (see Riegel, at least at [0012], [0022], [0025]-[0026], [0037], [0055], and other related text), separated by a transition point (see Riegel, at least at [0030]-[0033], Figs. 2-4, and other related text),
wherein the programming schedule is generated based at least in part on one or more stream operator preferences (see Riegel, at least at [0012], [0015]-[0017], [0022], [0025]-[0026], [0037], and other related text); and
based on the programming schedule, insert the first media asset and the second media asset (see Riegel, at least at [0032]-[0036], [0052]-[0055], and other related text).
Riegel does not specifically disclose stream operator preferences comprising one or more of a number of non-programming content breaks per hour, a duration of a non-programming content break, an insertion of the non-programming content break within the first media asset and between the first media asset and the second media asset, or a requirement of display of a network logo; or
inserting into a manifest comprising a first indicator of a plurality of media segments from the first media asset indicated in a first manifest, a second indicator of and the second media asset indicated in a second manifest;
based on the transition point in the programming schedule and the indicator of the second media asset, inserting, into the manifest, a discontinuity tag between one or more first media segments of the plurality of media segments that are from the first data source and one or more second media segments of the plurality of media segments that are from the second data source; or
publishing the manifest to a content delivery network, along with an instruction for the content delivery network to initiate a media stream via a media player.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing content, O’Malley discloses a system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory (see O’Malley, at least at Figs. 1-3, and related text), the one or more processors configured to cause the system to:
receive a programming schedule that lists at least a first media asset (see O’Malley, at least at [0015], and other related text) and a second media asset (see O’Malley, at least at [0015], and other related text), separated by a transition point (i.e., boundary of start times/end times and durations, see O’Malley, at least at [0015], [0042], and other related text),
wherein the programming schedule is generated based at least in part on one or more stream operator preferences (see O’Malley, at least [0015], [0042], [0048], [0070], and other related text); and
based on the programming schedule, insert, into a manifest comprising an first indicator of a plurality of media segments from a first media asset indicated in a first manifest, a second indicator of a second media asset indicated in a second manifest (see O’Malley, at least at [0002]-[0004], [0015]-[0018], [0024], [0050], [0054]-[0055], [0070], [0092], and other related text); and
publish the manifest to a content delivery network along with an instruction for the content delivery network to initiate a media stream via a media player (see O’Malley, at least at [0037], [0101]-[0102], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Riegel to include the limitations as taught by O’Malley for the advantage of more efficiently ensuring optimized video delivery to a user.
Riegel in view of O’Malley does not specifically disclose stream operator preferences comprising one or more of a number of non-programming content breaks per hour, a duration of a non-programming content break, an insertion of the non-programming content break within the first media asset and between the first media asset and the second media asset, or a requirement of display of a network logo; or
based on the transition point in the programming schedule and the indicator of the second media asset, inserting, into the manifest, a discontinuity tag between one or more first media segments of the plurality of media segments that are from a first data source and one or more second media segments of the plurality of media segments that are from a second data source.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing content, Asarikuniyil discloses based on a transition point in a programming schedule and an indicator of a second media asset (i.e., the scheduled end of a first asset and the scheduled start of a next, second asset, see Asarikuniyil, at least at [0003], [0018], [0033], and other related text), inserting a discontinuity tag between one or more first media segments of a plurality of media segments that are from a first data source (see Asarikuniyil, at least at [0015]-[0018], [0023], [0028]-[0032], [0033], [0037]-[0038] and other related text) and one or more second media segments of the plurality of media segments that are from a second data source (see Asarikuniyil, at least at [0015]-[0018], [0023], [0028]-[0032], [0033], [0037]-[0038] and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Riegel in view of O’Malley to include the limitations as taught by Asarikuniyil for the advantage of more efficiently ensuring proper video delivery to a user.
Riegel in view of O’Malley and Asarikuniyil does not specifically disclose stream operator preferences comprising one or more of a number of non-programming content breaks per hour, a duration of a non-programming content break, an insertion of the non-programming content break within the first media asset and between the first media asset and the second media asset, or a requirement of display of a network logo.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing content, Riedel discloses stream operator preferences comprising one or more of a number of non-programming content breaks per hour, a duration of a non-programming content break, an insertion of the non-programming content break within the first media asset and between the first media asset and the second media asset, or a requirement of display of a network logo (see Riedel, at least at [0020]-[0024], [0029], [0032], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Riegel in view of O’Malley and Asarikuniyil to include the limitations as taught by Riedel for the advantage of more efficiently ensuring proper usage of media.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 17, Riegel in view of O’Malley, Asarikuniyil and Riedel discloses wherein the transition point corresponds to an insertion of non-programming content (see O’Malley, at least at [0096], and other related text).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 18, Riegel in view of O’Malley, Asarikuniyil and Riedel discloses wherein the transition point corresponds to one or more of an ending of a first programming content or a beginning of a second programming content (see Asarikuniyil, at least at [0033], and other related text).
Regarding claims 7 Riegel in view of O’Malley, Asarikuniyil and Riedel discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the system to:
retrieve the first media asset from an indexing and storage system (see O’Malley, at least at [0117], and other related text).
Claims 4, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being patentable over Riegel (of record) in view of O’Malley (of record), Asarikuniyil (of record) and Riedel (previously cited), as applied to claims 1, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of Ma (of record).
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 19, Riegel in view of O’Malley, Asarikuniyil and Riedel does not specifically disclose wherein the transition point corresponds to a replacement of one or more of the plurality of media segments.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing content, Ma discloses a transition point corresponding to a replacement of one or more of a plurality of media segments (see Ma, at least at [0054], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Riegel in view of O’Malley, Asarikuniyil and Riedel to include the limitations as taught by Ma for the advantage of providing a more diverse system that provides more desirable content to a user.
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