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 .
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 06/26/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Objection to the claims
Claims 2-4; 6; 13-14; 16; 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims rejections-35 U.S.C. 112(d):
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5; 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends because the limitations “receiving, via the at least one server, at least one supplemental manifest file associated with the at least one supplemental content item, and wherein generating the second manifest file is further based on the at least one supplemental manifest file” were recited yet in independent claims 1 and 12. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims have been fully considered, but they are moot because of the new ground of rejection. applicant argues that cited references failed to disclose receiving, via at least one server, a first manifest file associated with a content item and at least one supplemental manifest file associated with at least one supplemental content item; based at least on the first manifest file and the at least one supplemental manifest file, generating a second manifest file comprising data for accessing a plurality of segments of the content item and data for accessing the at least one supplemental content item.
However, Weiner et al show in see fig.1a to fig.1b a system having a server 108 for providing original manifest with supplemental contents to user devices and the system can provide timestamps and location and position information related to supplemental contents as disclosed in para 0022-0023;0034; 0052;0059;0035; 0026.
And Upadhyaya et al disclose a system being able to provide a modified or supplemental manifest having supplemental secondary contents and the system contains a first manifest or original manifest containing streams of video contents as disclosed in para. 0012; 0049; 0019-0022; 0041-0043; 0028-0029.
And Mills et al disclose a system being capable of generating a second manifest file based on the combination of other manifest files and the system can provide location information related to supplemental advertisement and URI as disclosed in abstract; col.3, lines 32-45+; col.5, lines 9-20; col.5, lines 59-67; col.6, lines 1-11; col.3, lines 32-45+. This action is made non-final.
Claims rejections-35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 1; 7-8; 10-12; 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiner(US.Pub.No.20210168416) in view of Upadhyaya(US.Pub.No.20200204603) and Mills(US.Pat.No.10217138).
Regarding claim 1, Weiner et al disclose a method comprising: receiving, via at least one server(see fig.1a to fig.1b with server 108), a first manifest file associated with a content item( the system is able to provide original manifest to user device; 0022;0035); and
sending the second manifest file to a computing device(the revised manifest was sent to the client device 102;0031); wherein the computing device is configured, based on the second manifest file, to output the at least one supplemental content item during output of at least one of the plurality of segments of the content item(the system is able to overlay or superimpose supplemental content within a video stream; abstract; 0012-0013;0015).
But did not explicitly disclose receiving, via at least one server at least one supplemental manifest file associated with at least one supplemental content item; based at least on the first manifest file and the at least one supplemental manifest file, generating a second manifest file comprising data for accessing a plurality of segments of the content item and data for accessing the at least one supplemental content item.
However, Upadhyaya et al disclose receiving, via at least one server at least one supplemental manifest file associated with at least one supplemental content item(the system is able to provide a modified or supplemental manifest having supplemental secondary contents; 0012).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Upadhyaya to modify Weiner by providing supplemental or modified having secondary contents for the purpose of improving viewing experiences accordingly.
And Mills et al disclose based at least on the first manifest file(the system disclose a first manifest file, abstract; col.3, lines 32-45+) and the at least one supplemental manifest file(the system provides targeted advertisement files representing supplemental manifest, abstract; col.5, lines 9-20), generating a second manifest file(the system is able to generate a second manifest file based on the combination of a first manifest file and targeted advertisements files; abstract; col.3, lines 32-45+) comprising data for accessing a plurality of segments of the content item and data for accessing the at least one supplemental content item( see fig.2 for providing location information associated with supplemental contents as advertisements and URL/URI; col.5, lines 59-67; col.6, lines 1-11).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mills to modify Weiner and Upadhyaya by providing options to generate a second manifest based on combination of a first manifest and targeted advertisements files representing supplemental manifest files for the purpose of updating programming data with respect to time accordingly.
Regarding claim 7, Weiner et al disclose wherein the at least one supplemental content item comprises an overlay, and wherein the computing device is configured to output the at least one supplemental content item during output of the at least one of the plurality of segments of the content item by causing the at least one supplemental content item to be overlaid on the at least one of the plurality of segments of the content item during output of the at least one of the plurality of segments of the content item(the system is able to overlay additional content on the top of the main video content; abstract; 0015-0017).
Regarding claim 8 , Weiner et al disclose wherein the computing device is configured to output the at least one supplemental content item during output of the at least one of the plurality of segments of the content item by requesting the at least one of the plurality of segments of the content item from a server associated with a content network and requesting the at least one supplemental content item from the least one server(the system provides options to users to send requests for contents; 0018-0019;0021; 0025;0034-0035).
Regarding claim 10, Weiner et al disclose wherein the at least one server is associated with an affiliate of a content network or an advertiser(see fig.1a to fig.1b with server 108; 0021-0022).
Regarding claim 11,Weiner et al disclose wherein the at least one supplemental content item comprises at least one of a station logo overlay, a station ticker overlay, an advertisement banner overlay, or a sign language track overlay(the system is capable of displaying advertiser’s logo as overlaid content or banner or ticker along the bottom of the video; 0029).
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection as claim 1.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiner(US.Pub.No.20210168416) in view of Upadhyaya(US.Pub.No.20200204603) and Mills(US.Pat.No.10217138) and Zhang(US.Pub.No.20190199602).
Regarding claim 9, Weiner and Upadhyaya and Mills et al did not explicitly disclose wherein at least one virtualized cable modem termination system (vCMTS) is executing on the at least one server.
However, Zhang et al disclose wherein at least one virtualized cable modem termination system (vCMTS) is executing on the at least one server(the system discloses virtual cable modem; 0010; 0056).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Zhang to modify Weiner and Upadhyaya and Mills by introducing virtual cable modem to the system of Weiner for the purpose of improving the capability of the network accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN D SAINT CYR whose telephone number is (571)270-3224. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 5712727527. 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.
/JEAN D SAINT CYR/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
/Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights