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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13-15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Massey et al. (US 20090169171 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Massey teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
generating a client message associated with a streaming platform event, wherein the client message specifies a duration of the streaming platform event and one or more prohibited client device functionalities that are stopped from executing on at least one client device for the duration of the streaming platform event (generating a notification associated with a stream of primary media content, wherein the notification indicates a predetermined period time and one of playback functionalities that is stopped from executing on at least one client device for the predetermined period of time, e.g., stop playing or pause the primary media content for a predetermined period of time - see FIGs. 2 & 4, 0026, 0027, 0038, 0039);
identifying one or more client devices associated with the streaming platform event (identifying client devices, e.g., 202b, 202c, 202e in FIG. 2, associated with the stream of the primary media content – see FIG. 2, abstract, 0024); and
broadcasting the client message to the one or more client devices to cause the one or more client devices to stop the one or more prohibited client device functionalities for the duration of the streaming platform event (transmitting the notification to the client devices, e.g., 202b, 202c, and 202e, to cause the client devices stop playing or pause the primary media content during the predetermined period of time – see 0026, 0027, 0038, 0039).
Regarding claim 3, Massey teaches that wherein the one or more prohibited targeted client device functionalities comprise client device functionalities that are at least one of non-user facing client device functionalities or user-facing client device functionalities (the user-facing client device functionalities such content playback functionalities at the client devices – see abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Massey teaches that wherein the user-facing client device functionalities comprise one or more of automatic preview playback functionalities, automatic content playback functionalities, or automatic profile gallery functionalities (e.g., automated media content playback functionalities – see abstract, 0017, 0024, 0026, 0036).
Regarding claim 6, Massey taches identifying the one or more client devices that are associated with the streaming platform event that possesses one or more predetermined streaming platform system characteristics (identifying one or more client devices that are associated with the stream of primary media content that have are coordination and synchronization of playback of the primary media content – see abstract, 0036, 0038).
Regarding claim 7, Massey teaches generating an updated client message associated with the streaming platform event, wherein the client message indicates additional prohibited client device functionalities; and broadcasting the updated client message to the one or more client devices to cause the one or more client devices to stop the additional prohibited client device functionalities for a remaining duration of the streaming platform event (generating a further notification associated with the stream of primary media content, wherein the notification indicates one of playback functionalities – see 0011, 0029; and transmitting the further notification to the client devices to cause stop pausing the primary media content, i.e., resuming of playback of the primary media content, for a remaining duration of the stream of the primary media content – 0011, 0029, 0032, 0044).
Regarding claims 9, 11 and 13-15, see rejections of claims 1, 3 and 5-7, respectively.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, see rejections of claims 1 and 7, respectively.
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 2, 4, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massey et al. (US 20090169171 A1) in view of DiVincezo et al. (US 20170054800 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Massey does not disclose that wherein the streaming platform event comprises a live streaming event, wherein the non-user facing client device functionalities comprise one or more of logging functionality, prefetch functionality, probe functionality, DNS lookup functionality, gateway retry functionality, or bit-rate cap functionality. DiVincenzo discloses performing content prefetching for live or linear streaming content. Prefetching live or linear streaming content segments involves continually reissuing requests to the origin until the segments are obtained or a preset retry duration is completed. See abstract, 0014, 0015, 0025. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Massey by performing content prefetching for live streaming content as taught or suggested by Divincezo to reduce resource utilization in the distribution system.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, see rejection of claims 2 and 4.
Claims 8, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massey et al. (US 20090169171 A1) in view of Brueck et al. (US 20110022471 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Massey lacks to teach generating an updated client message associated with the streaming platform event, wherein the client message indicates an updated duration of the streaming platform event; and broadcasting the client message to the one or more client devices to cause the one or more client devices to resume the one or more targeted client device functionalities in response to determining that the streaming platform event has ended based on the updated duration. However, Brueck discloses that an update message sent over the connections to the media players indicate the time of the advertisement, and the duration of the advertisement break in a case the schedule of the live streaming event changes. In one embodiment, the update message is used for end-of-advertisement markers to allow the media player to know when to return to the live streaming event. The media player may return to the live streaming event after completion of the advertisement for the duration of the advertisement break. See abstract, 0025, and 0027. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Massey by generating an updated client message associated with the streaming platform event, wherein the client message indicates an updated duration of the streaming platform event; and broadcasting the client message to the one or more client devices to cause the one or more client devices to resume the one or more targeted client device functionalities in response to determining that the streaming platform event has ended based on the updated duration as disclosed or suggested by Brueck to provide real-time updates to the user devices for properly playing content of a live streaming event and advertisement when the schedule of the live streaming event changes.
Regarding claim 16, see rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Massey lacks to teach the streaming platform event comprising a live streaming event; and generating an updated client message associated with the streaming platform event, wherein the client message indicates an updated duration of the streaming platform event; and broadcasting the client message to the one or more client devices to cause the one or more client devices to resume the one or more targeted client device functionalities in response to determining that the streaming platform event has ended based on the updated duration. However, Brueck discloses that an update message sent over the connections to the media players indicate the time of the advertisement, and the duration of the advertisement break in a case the schedule of the live streaming event changes. In one embodiment, the update message is used for end-of-advertisement markers to allow the media player to know when to return to the live streaming event. The media player may return to the live streaming event after completion of the advertisement for the duration of the advertisement break. See abstract, 0025, and 0027. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Massey by including a live streaming event; and generating an updated client message associated with the streaming platform event, wherein the client message indicates an updated duration of the streaming platform event; and broadcasting the client message to the one or more client devices to cause the one or more client devices to resume the one or more targeted client device functionalities in response to determining that the streaming platform event has ended based on the updated duration as disclosed or suggested by Brueck to provide real-time updates to the user devices for properly playing content of a live streaming event and advertisement when the schedule of the live streaming event changes.
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 NGOC K VU whose telephone number is (571)272-7306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday 10AM - 6:30PM; Tuesday & Friday: 1PM - 5PM (Wednesday & Thursday: out of the office).
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.
/NGOC K VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights