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 .
This action is in response to application 18/814,740 filed 8/26/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting Analysis
It is determined that no form of double patenting, statutory or non—statutory, is appropriate with respect to the current application. Statutory double patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 does not apply because the present independent claims are not identical to, nor coterminous with, any claims of the cited family parent claims (see ADS 8/26/2024). The claims recite additional affirmative operational limitations directed to runtime control, verification, and orchestration of concurrent presentation of programming and non-programming media assets that are absent from the earlier parent claims. Non-statutory (obviousness-type) double patenting is likewise improper because the present claims are not obvious variants of any single earlier-issued family claim when evaluated on a claim-to-claim basis. While certain individual limitations may appear in the earlier patents, no earlier independent claims require the specific combination and sequence of steps now claimed, including event-opportunity-point-driven modification of a display view during playback, concurrent presentation control tied to those event points, and verification of the modified versus unmodified display states. These limitations are neither inherent nor routine optimizations of the earlier claims and reflect a distinct inventive concept rather than predictable narrowing. Accordingly, the present claims are patentable distinct and do not impermissible extend the term of any earlier patent, and a double patenting rejection is not warranted.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Heer et al., Pat No US 7,904,924 (hereafter de Heer) and further in view Swaminathan et al., Pub No US 2014/0040026 (hereafter Swaminathan).
Regarding Claim 1, de Heer discloses a system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory [col.3, lines 23-29: Discloses headend (FIG.1 block 100) includes processor, and one or more memory components.], the one or more processors configured to:
receive, originating from a client device, a client device request that identifies a user preference for media content [col.3, lines 4-10, FIG.10, block 1008, FIG.11, block 1106: Discloses the client device sends (originating) a request for VOD recommendations. Under BRI, the request identifies the user by identifying the viewer/client, which causes the system to use viewer-associated television viewing data representing user preference.];
identify one or more video on demand (VOD) media assets from a VOD catalog based at least in part on the user preference [FIG.1, col.4, lines 1-8, col.6, lines 35-44: Discloses available VOD Titles Store (a VOD catalog) containing a listing of VOD titles currently available for purchase. In FIG.4, the recommendations tab 402 is selected. Recommended VOD titles 408, 410, 412, 414, and 416 represent available VOD titles that have been automatically selected for recommendation to the viewer based on viewer-specific recommendation criteria. For example, in the described implementation, television programs that the viewer has previously watched are compared to television programs that have been previously watched by other viewers. When a match is found, VOD titles that have been purchased by those other viewers are then selected for recommendation to the viewer.];
de Heer does not explicitly disclose generate a client manifest corresponding to a VOD media asset of the one or more VOD media assets, wherein the client manifest comprises a plurality of uniform resource identifiers that respectively correspond to a plurality of encoded media segments of the VOD media asset; and provide, for the client device, the client manifest in response to the client device request. However, in analogous art, Swaminathan discloses
generate a client manifest corresponding to a VOD media asset of the one or more VOD media assets, wherein the client manifest comprises a plurality of uniform resource identifiers that respectively correspond to a plurality of encoded media segments of the VOD media asset [para.0018: Discloses a manifest file (also known as an index file or a playlist file) for streaming particular video content may be accessed by the client device from a server device via a network, the manifest file including one or more media segment URLs; and para.0026: Discloses the manifest file may include one or more media segment reference links and one or more advertisement markers arranged in a predetermined sequence. The media segment reference links are reference links that point to (and may be used for accessing) segments of media content, such as media segment files. A media segment reference link may be, for example, a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), Uniform Resource Locator (URL), Uniform Resource name (URN), or some other type of reference link. According to a preferred embodiment, the media segment reference links correspond to URLs (referred to throughout this disclosure as "media segment URLs", in the interests of clarity and brevity); and para.0027: Discloses the manifest file 300 includes six media segment URLs (e.g. media segment URL 301), arranged in a specific order, for accessing sequential media segment files corresponding to sequential portions of the video content via a network 104.]; and
provide, for the client device, the client manifest in response to the client device request [para.0038-0039: Discloses the manifest is provided to the client device in direct response to the client request.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify de Heer with these features, as taught by Swaminathan in order to yield predictable result such as delivering user-preferred VOD media assets using a client manifest that includes URIs for encoded media segments, enabling segment-based streaming of the selected VOD content to the client device [Swaminathan: para(s).0018, 0026 and 0038-0039].
Regarding Claim 2, the combined teachings of de Heer and Swaminathan discloses the system according to claim 1, and de Heer further discloses wherein the client device request comprises one or more request parameters and the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive the VOD media asset from a content delivery network (CDN) [col.3, 66-67, col.4, lines 1-2: Discloses VOD server (element 114 - a content delivery network) is configured to manage the sale and distribution of those VOD titles to client devices (element 106). Listings of available VOD titles are broadcast over network (element 104) to client devices (element 106).]; and
generate the plurality of encoded media segments of the VOD media asset based on the one or more request parameters [col.3, line 19-22: Discloses client devices (element 106) are representative of television set-top boxes or any other type of client device configured to receive broadcast television programs and other data over network (element 104). Generation and preparation of VOD content for network delivery included producing distributed media units responsive to client’s request.].
Regarding Claim 3, the combined teachings of de Heer and Swaminathan discloses the system according to claim 2, and de Heer further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
insert one or more executable tags within one or more of the plurality of encoded media segments [col.3, lines 32-35: Discloses other data that may be broadcast may include, but is not limited to, electronic program guide data and VOD recommendations that may be broadcast over in-band or out-of-band portions of network (element 104). Embedded control or signal data associated with delivered VOD content satisfies executable tag insertion.].
Regarding Claim 4, the combined teachings of de Heer and Swaminathan discloses the system according to claim 2, and de Heer further discloses wherein the one or more request parameters identify device data, a network configuration, a network Internet Protocol (IP), device IP, and client device type [col.3, lines 57-58: Discloses each record stored in TV data store (element 110) includes a client device identifier and a program identifier.].
Regarding Claim 6, the combined teachings of de Heer and Swaminathan discloses the system according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
generate a personalized play list based on the one or more VOD media assets [de Heer – col.4, lines 9-18: Discloses the VOD recommendation engine (element 118) is configured to generate VOD recommendations (a personalized play list) based on data stored in TV data store (element 110) and TV VOD association store (element 120).]; and
generate the client manifest based on the personalized playlist [Swaminathan – FIG.6 item 602, para.0041: Discloses a manifest file from a server device via a network, the manifest file including one or more media segment URLs and one or more advertisement markers arranged in a predetermined sequence. Generating a manifest from a sequence of media assets corresponds to generating a client manifest based on a playlist.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, the combined teachings of de Heer and Swaminathan discloses the system according to claim 6, and de Heer further discloses wherein the personalized play list comprises a recommended sequence of the one or more VOD media assets [col.2, lines 15-17: Discloses videos-on-demand that have highly weighted associations with one or more television programs that the viewer has watched are recommended. Recommending multiple VOD titles to a viewer constitutes a recommended sequence.].
Regarding Claim 8, the combined teachings of de Heer and Swaminathan discloses the system according to claim 7, and de Heer further discloses wherein the recommended sequence of the one or more VOD media assets is based on a user selection originating from the client device [col.6, lines 4-5; Discloses a VOD listing button (element 304, when selected, causes a listing of all available VOD titles to be displayed; and col.10, lines 11-20: Discloses data mining engine derives from the TV viewing data, predictions for VOD viewing. In one implementation, a decision tree algorithm is used. In this case the data mining engine creates a decision tree for each VOD title using the TV viewing data to generate the tree splitting criteria. The tree that is generated lists from most significant to less significant the TV shows that separate clients who have purchased the VOD from those who have not.].
Regarding Claim 9, the combined teachings of de Heer and Swaminathan discloses the system according to claim 1, and Swaminathan further discloses wherein the client device request is a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) request and is received via an HTTP live streaming (HLS) protocol [para.0025, Discloses the manifest handler module is configured to access a manifest file from a server device (e.g. web server 120) via a network (e.g. network 104). For example, the manifest file may be stored at a specific address identified via a reference link (such as a Uniform Resource Locator (URL)), and the manifest handler module may transmit an HTTP request tier the manifest file to the server device by accessing the reference link.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, the combined teachings of de Heer and Swaminathan discloses the system according to claim 1, and de Heer further discloses wherein the user preference identifies a type of the media content and the one or more processors are further configured to store the user preference in a user profile corresponding to a user of the client device [claim 10: Discloses wherein the weight represents a percentage of viewers who purchased or watched the particular video-on-demand and who also watched the particular broadcast television program; and col.10, lines 13-20: Discloses the data mining engine derives from the TV viewing data, predictions for VOD viewing. Generated lists from most significant to less significant the TV shows that separate clients who have purchased the VOD from those who have not (user preferences).].
Regarding Claim 11, de Heer discloses a computer-implemented method [col.9, lines 24-30: Discloses Video-On-Demand Recommendation Method.], comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors and originating from a client device, a client device request that identifies a user preference for media content [col.3, lines 4-10, FIG.10, block 1008, FIG.11, block 1106: Discloses the client device sends (originating) a request for VOD recommendations. Under BRI, the request identifies the user by identifying the viewer/client, which causes the system to use viewer-associated television viewing data representing user preference.];
identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more video on demand (VOD) media assets from a VOD catalog based at least in part on the user preference [FIG.1, col.4, lines 1-8, col.6, lines 35-44: Discloses available VOD Titles Store (a VOD catalog) containing a listing of VOD titles currently available for purchase. In FIG.4, the recommendations tab 402 is selected. Recommended VOD titles 408, 410, 412, 414, and 416 represent available VOD titles that have been automatically selected for recommendation to the viewer based on viewer-specific recommendation criteria. For example, in the described implementation, television programs that the viewer has previously watched are compared to television programs that have been previously watched by other viewers. When a match is found, VOD titles that have been purchased by those other viewers are then selected for recommendation to the viewer.];
de Heer does not explicitly disclose generating, by the one or more processors, a client manifest corresponding to a VOD media asset of the one or more VOD media assets, wherein the client manifest comprises a plurality of uniform resource identifiers that respectively correspond to a plurality of encoded media segments of the VOD media asset; and providing, by the one or more processors and for the client device, the client manifest in response to the client device request. However, in analogous art, Swaminathan discloses
generating, by the one or more processors, a client manifest corresponding to a VOD media asset of the one or more VOD media assets, wherein the client manifest comprises a plurality of uniform resource identifiers that respectively correspond to a plurality of encoded media segments of the VOD media asset [para.0018: Discloses a manifest file (also known as an index file or a playlist file) for streaming particular video content may be accessed by the client device from a server device via a network, the manifest file including one or more media segment URLs; and para.0026: Discloses the manifest file may include one or more media segment reference links and one or more advertisement markers arranged in a predetermined sequence. The media segment reference links are reference links that point to (and may be used for accessing) segments of media content, such as media segment files. A media segment reference link may be, for example, a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), Uniform Resource Locator (URL), Uniform Resource name (URN), or some other type of reference link. According to a preferred embodiment, the media segment reference links correspond to URLs (referred to throughout this disclosure as "media segment URLs", in the interests of clarity and brevity); and para.0027: Discloses the manifest file 300 includes six media segment URLs (e.g. media segment URL 301), arranged in a specific order, for accessing sequential media segment files corresponding to sequential portions of the video content via a network 104.]; and
providing, by the one or more processors and for the client device, the client manifest in response to the client device request [para.0038-0039: Discloses the manifest is provided to the client device in direct response to the client request.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify de Heer with these features, as taught by Swaminathan in order to yield predictable result such as delivering user-preferred VOD media assets using a client manifest that includes URIs for encoded media segments, enabling segment-based streaming of the selected VOD content to the client device [Swaminathan: para(s).0018, 0026 and 0038-0039].
Regarding Claim 12, the combined teachings of de Heer and Swaminathan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 11, and de Heer further discloses wherein the client device request comprises one or more request parameters and the computer-implemented method further comprises:
receive the VOD media asset from a content delivery network (CDN) [col.3, 66-67, col.4, lines 1-2: Discloses VOD server (element 114 - a content delivery network) is configured to manage the sale and distribution of those VOD titles to client devices (element 106). Listings of available VOD titles are broadcast over network (element 104) to client devices (element 106).]; and
generate the plurality of encoded media segments of the VOD media asset based on the one or more request parameters [col.3, line 19-22: Discloses client devices (element 106) are representative of television set-top boxes or any other type of client device configured to receive broadcast television programs and other data over network (element 104). Generation and preparation of VOD content for network delivery included producing distributed media units responsive to client’s request.].
Regarding Claim 13, the combined teachings of de Heer and Swaminathan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 11, and further discloses wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises:
generate a personalized play list based on the one or more VOD media assets [de Heer – col.4, lines 9-18: Discloses the VOD recommendation engine (element 118) is configured to generate VOD recommendations (a personalized play list) based on data stored in TV data store (element 110) and TV VOD association store (element 120).]; and
generate the client manifest based on the personalized playlist [Swaminathan – FIG.6 item 602, para.0041: Discloses a manifest file from a server device via a network, the manifest file including one or more media segment URLs and one or more advertisement markers arranged in a predetermined sequence. Generating a manifest from a sequence of media assets corresponds to generating a client manifest based on a playlist.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 11.
Regarding Claim 14, the combined teachings of de Heer and Swaminathan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 13, and de Heer further discloses wherein the personalized playlist comprises a recommended sequence of the one or more VOD media assets [col.2, lines 15-17: Discloses videos-on-demand that have highly weighted associations with one or more television programs that the viewer has watched are recommended. Recommending multiple VOD titles to a viewer constitutes a recommended sequence.].
Regarding Claim 15, the combined teachings of de Heer and Swaminathan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 14, and de Heer further discloses wherein the recommended sequence of the one or more VOD media assets is based on a user selection originating from the client device [col.6, lines 4-5; Discloses a VOD listing button (element 304, when selected, causes a listing of all available VOD titles to be displayed; and col.10, lines 11-20: Discloses data mining engine derives from the TV viewing data, predictions for VOD viewing. In one implementation, a decision tree algorithm is used. In this case the data mining engine creates a decision tree for each VOD title using the TV viewing data to generate the tree splitting criteria. The tree that is generated lists from most significant to less significant the TV shows that separate clients who have purchased the VOD from those who have not.].
Regarding Claim 16, the combined teachings of de Heer and Swaminathan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 11, and Swaminathan further discloses wherein the client device request is a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) request and is received via an HTTP live streaming (HLS) protocol [para.0025, Discloses the manifest handler module is configured to access a manifest file from a server device (e.g. web server 120) via a network (e.g. network 104). For example, the manifest file may be stored at a specific address identified via a reference link (such as a Uniform Resource Locator (URL)), and the manifest handler module may transmit an HTTP request tier the manifest file to the server device by accessing the reference link.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 11.
Regarding Claim 17, the combined teachings of de Heer and Swaminathan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 11, and de Heer further discloses wherein the user preference identifies a type of the media content and the one or more processors are further configured to store the user preference in a user profile corresponding to a user of the client device [claim 10: Discloses wherein the weight represents a percentage of viewers who purchased or watched the particular video-on-demand and who also watched the particular broadcast television program; and col.10, lines 13-20: Discloses the data mining engine derives from the TV viewing data, predictions for VOD viewing. Generated lists from most significant to less significant the TV shows that separate clients who have purchased the VOD from those who have not (user preferences).].
Regarding Claim 18, de Heer discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors [col.4, lines 63-67, col.5, lines 1-12, claim 25: Discloses computer-readable storage device having computer-readable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, implements the method] to:
receive, originating from a client device, a client device request that identifies a user preference for media content [col.3, lines 4-10, FIG.10, block 1008, FIG.11, block 1106: Discloses the client device sends (originating) a request for VOD recommendations. Under BRI, the request identifies the user by identifying the viewer/client, which causes the system to use viewer-associated television viewing data representing user preference.];
identify one or more video on demand (VOD) media assets from a VOD catalog based at least in part on the user preference [FIG.1, col.4, lines 1-8, col.6, lines 35-44: Discloses available VOD Titles Store (a VOD catalog) containing a listing of VOD titles currently available for purchase. In FIG.4, the recommendations tab 402 is selected. Recommended VOD titles 408, 410, 412, 414, and 416 represent available VOD titles that have been automatically selected for recommendation to the viewer based on viewer-specific recommendation criteria. For example, in the described implementation, television programs that the viewer has previously watched are compared to television programs that have been previously watched by other viewers. When a match is found, VOD titles that have been purchased by those other viewers are then selected for recommendation to the viewer.];
de Heer does not explicitly disclose generate a client manifest corresponding to a VOD media asset of the one or more VOD media assets, wherein the client manifest comprises a plurality of uniform resource identifiers that respectively correspond to a plurality of encoded media segments of the VOD media asset; and provide, for the client device, the client manifest in response to the client device request. However, in analogous art, Swaminathan discloses
generate a client manifest corresponding to a VOD media asset of the one or more VOD media assets, wherein the client manifest comprises a plurality of uniform resource identifiers that respectively correspond to a plurality of encoded media segments of the VOD media asset [para.0018: Discloses a manifest file (also known as an index file or a playlist file) for streaming particular video content may be accessed by the client device from a server device via a network, the manifest file including one or more media segment URLs; and para.0026: Discloses the manifest file may include one or more media segment reference links and one or more advertisement markers arranged in a predetermined sequence. The media segment reference links are reference links that point to (and may be used for accessing) segments of media content, such as media segment files. A media segment reference link may be, for example, a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), Uniform Resource Locator (URL), Uniform Resource name (URN), or some other type of reference link. According to a preferred embodiment, the media segment reference links correspond to URLs (referred to throughout this disclosure as "media segment URLs", in the interests of clarity and brevity); and para.0027: Discloses the manifest file 300 includes six media segment URLs (e.g. media segment URL 301), arranged in a specific order, for accessing sequential media segment files corresponding to sequential portions of the video content via a network 104.]; and
provide, for the client device, the client manifest in response to the client device request [para.0038-0039: Discloses the manifest is provided to the client device in direct response to the client request.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify de Heer with these features, as taught by Swaminathan in order to yield predictable result such as delivering user-preferred VOD media assets using a client manifest that includes URIs for encoded media segments, enabling segment-based streaming of the selected VOD content to the client device [Swaminathan: para(s).0018, 0026 and 0038-0039].
Regarding Claim 19, the combined teachings of de Heer and Swaminathan discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 18, and de Heer further discloses wherein the client device request comprises one or more request parameters and the one or more processors are further caused to:
receive the VOD media asset from a content delivery network (CDN) [col.3, 66-67, col.4, lines 1-2: Discloses VOD server (element 114 - a content delivery network) is configured to manage the sale and distribution of those VOD titles to client devices (element 106). Listings of available VOD titles are broadcast over network (element 104) to client devices (element 106).]; and
generate the plurality of encoded media segments of the VOD media asset based on the one or more request parameters [col.3, line 19-22: Discloses client devices (element 106) are representative of television set-top boxes or any other type of client device configured to receive broadcast television programs and other data over network (element 104). Generation and preparation of VOD content for network delivery included producing distributed media units responsive to client’s request.].
Regarding Claim 20, the combined teachings of de Heer and Swaminathan discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 19, and de Heer further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further caused to:
insert one or more executable tags within one or more of the plurality of encoded media segments [col.3, lines 32-35: Discloses other data that may be broadcast may include, but is not limited to, electronic program guide data and VOD recommendations that may be broadcast over in-band or out-of-band portions of network (element 104). Embedded control or signal data associated with delivered VOD content satisfies executable tag insertion.].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Heer et al., Pat No US 7,904,924 (hereafter de Heer) and further in view of Swaminathan et al., Pub No US 2014/0040026 (hereafter Swaminathan) and further in view of Bloch et al., Pub No US 2017 /0062012 (hereafter Bloch).
Regarding Claim 5, the combined teachings of de Heer and Swaminathan discloses the system according to claim 4, and the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the device data identifies a scale, an aspect ratio, and a resolution of the client device. However, in analogous art, Bloch discloses other properties of user devices, such as smartphone, can include screen resolution, aspect ratio, display proportions, and physical screen size [para.0028]. Physical screen size and display proportions constitute a scale of the client device, while aspect ratio and screen resolution are expressly identified. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify de Heer and Swaminathan with these features, as taught by Bloch in order to yield predictable result such as the video content is adapted to properly fit the client device [Bloch: para(s).0005, 0028].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reza, (US 2012/0185530) – Discloses an HTTP-based adaptive VOD system in which client device provides media attributes (including resolution, aspect ratio, and screen size), the server dynamically generates and delivers transcoded media segments and indexed segment files, user selections and account data drive payback across devices. [FIG.2, para.0013-0014].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL OCAK whose telephone number is (571) 272-2774. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system; contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADIL OCAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426