DETAILED ACTION
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 .
1. Claims 1-22 are presented for examination.
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal, US 2024/0040180 A1, in view of Riedl et al., (hereafter, “Riedl”), US 2026/0006282 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Agrawal teaches a method for selecting streaming content for a customer (i.e., a method for real-time delivery of a target content in a streaming content, abstract and Fig. 2) comprising:
(a) constructing a dynamic grouping of streaming clients each of which receive the same streaming content (i.e., the one or more users are grouped under one cohort based on similarities of the one or more characteristics and/or behaviors between the users, for example, requested streaming content, page 3 paragraph [0034]);
(b) a manifest provider constructing a common corresponding manifest (i.e., create the customized virtual manifest for the at least one user device, page 9 paragraph [0086]) that is used for each dynamic grouping of streaming clients for said streaming content (i.e., the same customized manifest can be used and served to the other user devices, page 14 paragraph [0135]);
(c) providing said streaming content to said dynamic grouping of streaming clients based upon said common corresponding manifest (i.e., fetch and deliver the at least one target content in the requested streaming content to the at least one user device based on the customized virtual manifest, page 5 paragraph [0054]);
wherein said dynamic grouping of streaming client is constructed by a manifest publisher (i.e., the Content Handling Server first identify at least one cohort associated with the at least one user device based on the analysis and mapping the user segment information of the at least one user device with user segment information associated with one or more other user devices available in the at least one cohort, page 7 paragraph [0076]); and
wherein said common corresponding manifest is constructed by a manifest provider (i.e., Content Handling Server is configured to create a customized virtual manifest for the at least one user device, page 9 paragraph [0083]).
Agrawal does not explicitly teach constructing a common corresponding manifest prior to receiving a request for content from any one of said clients.
Riedl teaches constructing a common corresponding manifest prior to receiving a request for content from any one of said clients (i.e., manifest generation may be performed independently of and prior to a client request, page 6 paragraph [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Agrawal to construct a common corresponding manifest prior to receiving a request for content from any one of said clients, as taught by Riedl, in order to conserve memory once a customized content is streamed from remote server to the client on the user device (i.e., Riedl, page 3 paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 2, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said grouping of streaming clients is dynamically based upon the request for common entertainment content (i.e., identify cohort X corresponding to the at least one user based on the similarity of the user segment information of the at least one user with users currently watching the same streaming content, page 5 paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said grouping of streaming clients is dynamically grouped (i.e., page 3 paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said grouping of streaming clients is statically maintained (i.e., page 3 paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 5, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said dynamic grouping of streaming clients are within a predefined geographic area (i.e., location, page 3 paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said dynamic grouping of streaming clients is based upon an advertising region (i.e., page 3 paragraph [0034] and page 4 paragraphs [0037] and [0044]).
Regarding claim 8, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 6 wherein said advertising region is a market area (i.e., page 4 paragraph [00045]).
Regarding claim 9, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 6 wherein said advertising region is a service group (i.e., page 4 paragraph 0045]).
Regarding claim 10, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 3 wherein said dynamic grouping of said streaming clients is based upon at least one of device type, subscription level, demographics, content interests, and profiles (i.e., pages 6-7 paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 11, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 3 wherein said dynamic grouping of said streaming clients is based upon a parameter in a URI request (i.e., page 6 paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 12, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said streaming content is adaptive bitrate video content (i.e., page 4 paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 13, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said streaming content is adaptive bitrate audio content (i.e., page 4 paragraphs [0038] and [0046]).
Regarding claim 14, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said channel manifest publisher produces common corresponding manifest to support a multicast adaptive bitrate controller that distributes common media to said dynamic grouping of streaming clients (i.e., page 4 paragraphs [0045]- [0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said manifest provider is at least one of a manifest manipulator and a just in time packager (i.e., insert personalized advertisements on the fly, page 1 paragraph [0003[).
Regarding claim 16, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said channel manifest publisher assigns said dynamic grouping of streaming clients to a shared channel (i.e., page 12 paragraph [0109]).
Regarding claim 17, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said dynamic grouping of streaming clients receive said streaming content as at least one of HLS and MPEG-DASH (i.e., page 4 paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 18, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said dynamic grouping of streaming clients supports the channel distribution for service groups that can support QAM or switched digital video (i.e., IPTV program, page 4 paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 19, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said dynamic grouping of streaming clients is selected based upon system performance and/or a corresponding load (i.e. 10 similar users, page 9 paragraph [0082]).
Regarding claim 20, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said channel manifest publisher produces stable known resources for group distribution that are assigned to the clients based upon at least one of a channel listing and existing policy rules (i.e., page 9 paragraphs [0082]- [0083] and pages 11-12 paragraph [0108]).
Regarding claim 21, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1| wherein said channel manifest publisher produces stable known resources for group distribution that redirect the clients into the group based upon dynamic policy rules (i.e., page 9 paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 22, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 1 wherein said channel manifest publisher produces stable known resources (i.e., requested streaming content URLs and target content URLs) for group distribution that is expanded based upon a cached manifest (i.e., page 1 paragraph [0007]).
3. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal, in view of Riedl as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Stern et al., (hereafter “Stern”), US 2014/0317657 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Agrawal teaches the method of claim 6.
The combination of teachings of Agrawal and Riedl does not explicitly teach wherein said advertising region is a quadrature amplitude modulation advertising zone distribution.
Stern teaches said advertising region is a quadrature amplitude modulation advertising zone distribution (i.e., the network controller determining at least a quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) identifier…associating the QAM identifier to the advertisement zone, paragraph [0018])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of teachings of Agrawal and Riedl to implement a quadrature amplitude modulation advertising zone distribution, as taught by Stern because it was conventionally employed in the art for efficiently transmitting content over communication channel(s).
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-22 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.
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OANH DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571) 272-4170. 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.
/OANH DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights