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 3/2/2026. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended. Claims 6, 13 and 20 are cancelled. Claim 24 is new. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 and 21-24 are pending in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 and 21-24 have been considered but 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, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 15, 18-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Malley (of record) in view of Nijim (of record) and Jacobs et al. (US20110321088, hereinafter Jacobs).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15 and 19, O’Malley discloses a system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory (see O’Malley, at least at Figs. 2-3, and related text), the one or more processors configured to:
select one or more pre-encoded media assets from a plurality of pre-encoded media assets for insertion to a media feed (see O’Malley, at least at [0015]-[0017], [0024], [0041], and other related text);
receive a plurality of manifests (see O’Malley, at least at [0024]-[0025], [0067], [0129], and other related text), each corresponding to one of a plurality of channels (see O’Malley, at least at [0015]-[0017], [0024]-[0025], [0067], [0079], and other related text);
generate a first updated manifest and a second updated manifest (see O’Malley, at least [0025], [0129], and other related text) by inserting one or more references to the one or more pre-encoded media assets (see O’Malley, at least at [0025], [0067]-[0070], [0079], [0129], and other related text) into a first manifest and a second manifest from the plurality of manifests (see O’Malley, at least at [0025], [0067]-[0070], [0079], [0129], and other related text), wherein the first updated manifest and the second updated manifest are generated independently of an encoding operation for the one or more pre-encoded media assets (see O’Malley, at least at [0015]-[0016], [0024], [0067]-[0070], [0079], and other related text); and
transmit the first updated manifest and the second updated manifest (see O’Malley, at least [0025], [0129], and other related text) to a content delivery network (see O’Malley, at least at [0014], [0017], [0023], [0102]-[0103], and other related text), along with an instruction for the content delivery network to stream the channel, based on the updated manifest, to one or more client devices (see O’Malley, at least at [0014], [0017], [0023], [0102]-[0103], and other related text).
O’Malley does not specifically disclose the one or more processors configured to generate aggregate viewing information based on a plurality of data feeds; or to
select, based at least on the aggregate viewing information, the one or more assets; or
an instruction to stream at least one of a first channel corresponding to the first updated manifest or a second channel corresponding to the second updated manifest, based on the first updated manifest or the second updated manifest, to one or more client devices.
In an analogous art related to a system for assembling channel content, Nijim discloses one or more processors (see Nijim, at least at Figs. 1-2 and 6-7, and related text) configured to:
generate aggregate viewing information based on a plurality of data feeds (see Nijim, at least at col 1, lines 44-56, col 2, lines 46-64, col 3, lines 33-40, col 4, line 60 – col 5, line 11, col 5, lines 36-67, and other relates text); and
select, based at least on the aggregate viewing information, one or more pre-encoded media assets from a plurality of pre-encoded media assets for insertion to a media feed associated with a channel (see Nijim, at least at col 4, lines 15-33, col 7, lines 7-23, 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 O’Malley to include the limitations as taught by Nijim for the advantage of more efficiently providing alternatives that are more desirable to a user.
O’Malley in view of Njiim does not specifically disclose an instruction to stream at least one of a first channel corresponding to the first updated manifest or a second channel corresponding to the second updated manifest, based on the first updated manifest or the second updated manifest, to one or more client devices.
In an analogous art relating to a system of provisioning content, Jacobs discloses an instruction to stream at least one of a first channel corresponding to the first updated manifest or a second channel corresponding to the second updated manifest, based on the first updated manifest or the second updated manifest, to one or more client devices (see Jacobs, at least at [0044], [0048]-[0049], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of O’Malley in view of Nijim to include the limitations as taught Jacobs for the advantage of maintaining viewer satisfaction.
Regarding claim 4, 11 and 18, O’Malley in view of Nijim and Jacobs discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
identify the one or more pre-encoded media assets based at least in part on external data received from an external data source (i.e., data source external to server, see O’Malley, at least at [0044]-[0045], and other related text).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, O’Malley in view of Nijim and Jacobs discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to modify a programming schedule based on the one or more pre-encoded media assets (see O’Malley, at least at [0070], and other related text).
Claims 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Malley (of record) in view of Nijim (of record) and Jacobs (previously cited) , as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Bieschke (of record).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, O’Malley in view of Nijim and Jacobs does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
identify the one or more pre-encoded media assets based at least in part on a content context analysis of the plurality of pre-encoded media assets.
In an analogous art relating to a system for outputting media, Bieschke discloses identifying the one or more pre-encoded media assets based at least in part on a content context analysis of the plurality of pre-encoded media assets (see Bieschke, at least at [0022]-[0023], [0039]-[0040], 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 O’Malley in view of Nijim and Jacobs to include the limitations as taught by Bieschke for the advantage of more efficiently providing alternatives that are more desirable to a user.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, O’Malley in view of Nijim and Jacobs, and further in view of Bieschke discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
identify the one or more pre-encoded media assets based at least in part on a user-selection (see Bieschke, at least at [0022]-[0023], [0039]-[0040], and other related text).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Malley (of record) in view of Nijim (of record) and Jacobs (previously cited), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Kang of record) and Arghandiwal (of record).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, O’Malley in view of Nijim and Jacobs discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
provide adaptive bitrate streaming of the one or more pre-encoded media assets by accessing the plurality of pre-encoded media assets using the one or more references, wherein the plurality of pre-encoded media assets is stored at a plurality of quality levels (see O’Malley, at least at [0041]-[0043], and other related text), but does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of pre-encoded media assets is stored at a plurality of quality levels and a plurality of content encryption modes corresponding to a plurality of delivery methods.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing content, Kang discloses a plurality of pre-encoded media assets having one or more references, wherein the plurality of pre-encoded media assets is stored at a plurality of quality levels and a plurality of content encryption modes (see Kang, at least at [0009], [0035], [0054]-[0057], [0067]-[0068] and [0086]).
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 O’Malley in view of Nijim and Jacobs to include the limitations ad taught by Kang for the advantage of efficiently providing content to users while protecting the rights of the content owners.
O’Malley in view of Nijim and Jacobs, and further in view of Kang does not specially disclose the plurality of pre-encoded media assets is stored at a plurality of content encryption modes corresponding to a plurality of delivery methods.
In an analogous art relating to a system for content provision, Arghandiwal discloses plurality of pre-encoded media assets is stored at a plurality of content encryption modes corresponding to a plurality of delivery methods (see Arghandiwal, at least at [0041]-[0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention to modify the system of O’Malley in view of Nijim, Jacobs and Kang to include the limitations as taught by Arghandiwal for the advantage of providing a more robust system that efficiently optimizes system resources.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Malley (of record) in view of Nijim (of record) and Jacobs (previously cited), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Lewis et al. (US20120047542, hereinafter Lewis).
Regarding claim 24, O’Malley in view of Nijim and Jacobs does not specifically disclose wherein the first updated manifest and the second updated manifest are generated independently of the encoding operation based on a re- use of the one or more pre-encoded media assets.
In an analogous art relating to a system for provisioning content, Lewis discloses updated manifests generated independently of an encoding operation based on a re-use of one or more pre-encoded media assets (see Lewis, at least at [0019], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention to modify the system of O’Malley in view of Nijim and Jacobs include the limitations as taught by Lewis for the advantage of providing a more robust system that efficiently optimizes system resources.
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
Prosecution Insights