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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 04/09/2026. Claims 1-20 are presently pending.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejection, Applicant’s statement is noted. However, due to the Office’s compact prosecution policy, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,398. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, Instant claims 1-3 recite similar limitations as those of claim 1 of the issued patent, therefore broader than patented claim 1, therefore, obvious over patented claim 1.
Similar analysis applies to the remining claims.
Instant Application shares the same Specification as Application 18/169,755 (hereinafter ‘755) filed on the same date. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected over claims 1-20 of the Application 18/169,755. Though the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct. For example, with respect to exemplary claims 1, instant Application’s claim 1 recite similar features as those of claims 1 and 2 of the ‘755 with added recitation of “wherein the manifest file comprises an alternate video track summary for an alternative video track”.
However, Sachdev (USPGPUB 2017/0359628) discloses packaging and generating manifest files (Abstract, Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions) wherein the manifest file comprises an alternate video track summary for an alternative video track (¶ [17], also see Figs. 3, 4 and corresponding descriptions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of ‘755 with Sachdev' s teachings in order to provide for better and faster manipulation of content matched to viewer’s circumstances.
Similar analysis applies to claims 2-20.
Instant Application shares the same Specification as Application 18/169,783 (hereinafter ‘783) filed on the same date. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected over claims 1-20 of the Application 18/169,783. Though the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct. For example, with respect to exemplary claims 1, instant Application’s claim 1 recite similar features as those of claims 1 and 5 of the ‘783 with added recitation of “wherein the manifest file comprises an alternate video track summary for an alternative video track”.
However, Sachdev (USPGPUB 2017/0359628) discloses packaging and generating manifest files (Abstract, Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions) wherein the manifest file comprises an alternate video track summary for an alternative video track (¶ [17], also see Figs. 3, 4 and corresponding descriptions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of ‘783 with Sachdev' s teachings in order to provide for better and faster manipulation of content matched to viewer’s circumstances.
Similar analysis applies to claims 2-20.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyle et al., USPGPUB 2012/0023251 (hereinafter “Pyle”), in view of Sachdev et al., USPGPUB 2017/0359628 (hereinafter “Sachdev”). Pyle reference was cited in the IDS of 11/18/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Pyle discloses a computer-implemented method (Abstract, Figs. 1-12), comprising:
receiving a request for a manifest file from an endpoint application, wherein the request identifies a user and a media title (¶¶ [32], [38]-[39], [43], [82], [92], [101], [111], [128], [150], and Table I);
selecting a first set of video streams included in a media package based on metadata associated with the user (Attributes/ metadata indicative of the user preferences and systems requirements, examples of which are shown in Figs. 3 and 8; Figs. 4-6, and 9-11 and corresponding descriptions);
generating a first recommended presentation based on a video track derived from the first set of video streams (¶ [99]; Figs. 9-11 and corresponding descriptions);
generating a manifest file for the video track that allows the media title to be played back in accordance with at least the first recommended presentation of the video track (Figs. 9-11, and corresponding descriptions; ¶¶ [92]-[107]); and
transmitting the manifest file to the endpoint application (As described with respect to Figs. 9-11 and corresponding descriptions).
Pyle is not explicit in wherein the manifest file comprises an alternate video track summary for an alternate video track.
However, Sachdev discloses packaging and generating manifest files (Abstract, Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions) wherein the manifest file comprises an alternate video track summary for an alternate video track (¶ [17], also see Figs. 3, 4 and corresponding descriptions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Pyle with Sachdev' s teachings in order to provide for better and faster manipulation of content matched to viewer’s circumstances.
However, Jacobs discloses a method, computer program code, and system for automating content replacement in media such as video and programs using messages/ triggers where such messages are based on SCTE messages (¶ [60]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of The Lemire with Jacob' s teachings in order to utilize and adhere to well-known and widely understood standards such as SCTE.
Regarding claim 2, Pyle discloses selecting a first set of audio streams included in the media package based on the metadata associated with the user (Pyle teachings apply to both video and audio tracks, ¶¶ [5]-[6], [14], [42], [45]; See the example of ¶ [92]; Fig. 4 and corresponding descriptions).
Regarding claim 3, Pyle discloses wherein selecting the first set of audio streams comprises determining that the first set of audio streams matches an audio preference specified in the metadata associated with the user based on one or more audio metadata sets (¶¶ [5]-[6], [14], [42], [45]; See the example of ¶ [92]; Fig. 4 and corresponding descriptions).
Regarding claim 4, Pyle discloses wherein the first recommended presentation is further generated based on an audio track derived from the first set of audio streams (¶¶ [5]-[6], [14], [42], [45]; See the example of ¶ [92]; Fig. 4 and corresponding descriptions).
Regarding claim 5, Pyle discloses selecting a first set of timed text streams included in the media package based on the metadata associated with the user (Fig. 4 and corresponding descriptions; ¶¶ [42], [52], [59]).
Regarding claim 6, Pyle discloses wherein selecting the first set of timed text streams comprises determining that the first set of timed text streams matches a timed text preference specified in the metadata associated with the user based on one or more timed text metadata sets (Fig. 3 and corresponding descriptions; ¶¶ [85], [90]; Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, Pyle discloses wherein the first recommended presentation is further generated based on a timed text track derived from the first set of timed text streams (¶¶ [85], [90]; Tables 1, 2; ¶¶ 9137]-[139])).
Regarding claim 8, Pyle discloses generating one or more additional recommended presentations, wherein each additional recommended presentation specifies the video track and a different combination of an audio track and a timed text track (Abstract; ¶¶ [5], [9], [32], [45], [52], [95]. [100]).
Regarding claim 9, Pyle discloses wherein selecting the first set of video streams comprises determining that a language specified in a video metadata set matches at least one of a preferred language (¶¶ [5]-[6], [14], Fig. 3 and corresponding description), or a preferred aspect ratio specified in at least one of the metadata associated with the user or metadata associated with a client device (¶ [94], Fig. 3 and corresponding description).
Regarding claim 10, Pyle discloses wherein generating the manifest file comprises generating a description of a video track that specifies at least one of a different bitrate (¶¶ [5], [48]), a different resolution (¶¶ [5], [10], [80]), a different quality score (¶¶ [6], [48], [94]), or a different locator for each video stream included in the video track (¶¶ [13], [38], [81], [82]).
Computer program codes of claims 11-19, effectuating the method of claims 1-10, respectively, are rejected by the same analysis.
The system of claim 20, reciting similar features as those of the method of claim 1, effectuated by the same, is rejected by the same analysis.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R MARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-7 ET flex.
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 J 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.
/JAMES R MARANDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights