DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,155,882.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims. Both sets of claims are directed to a method of creating manifest files for different bit rates including the use of state information, and one of ordinary skill would see the claims in question as obvious variants of each other.
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 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kilar, US 2012/0072286.
Claims 1, 7, 13. Kilar teaches a method comprising:
a processor and memory [paras. 78-81];
receiving, from a device, a first request for a first content item [media player/user device 102 selects and requests appropriate bit rate, paras. 106, 111, 117, 120, 121, 125, 127, 137, 140-153; Figs. 3A, 3B];
causing, based on the first content item, a first manifest file for the first content item to be generated [playlist for each bit rate, segment playlists, paras. 111, 127 et seq., paras. 142-153, Figs. 3F, 3G, 3H];
associating the first manifest file with an identifier [manifest is sent based on request including identifier i.e. manifest is “associated” with the identifier, paras. 93, 98, 125, 127];
sending, to the device, the first manifest file [playlist is transmitted by server, paras. 111, 128, 130, 131, 147-153];
receiving, from the device, a second request for the first content item, wherein the second request comprises the identifier [user device determines and requests if a second (higher or lower) bit rate is necessary, paras. 106, 117, 120, 121; requests for content include user device identifier, paras. 93, 98, 127]; and
causing, based on the identifier, a second manifest file for the first content item to be generated [a second playlist is created for different bit rates; “versions" are related ads having different bit rate; paras. 106, 111, 117, 120, 121, 136, 137, 142-153 Figs. 1, 2, 3A-H].
2, 8, 14, 20. Kilar teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising sending, to the device, the second manifest file [second playlist provided, Fig. 3C, paras. 106, 111, 117, 120, 121, 136, 137, 142-153 Figs. 1, 2, 3A-H].
3, 9, 15, 21. Kilar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the identifier comprises a device identifier for the device [device/computer identifier, paras. 93, 98, 125, 127].
4, 10, 16, 22. Kilar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first request is for the first content item at a first bitrate [media player/user device 102 selects and requests appropriate bit rate, paras. 106, 111, 117,120,121,125,127,137,140-153; Figs. 3A, 3B]; and the second request is for the first content item at a second bitrate different from the first bitrate [a second playlist is created for different bit rates; “versions" are related ads having different bit rate; paras. 106, 111, 117, 120, 121, 136, 137, 142-153 Figs. 1, 2, 3A-H].
5, 11, 17, 23. Kilar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second request is received based on a change in a network condition [e.g. requests based on bandwidth, buffer speed, etc., paras. 104, 111, 112, 117, 135, 197].
6, 12, 18, 24. Kilar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first manifest file comprises one or more segments of the first content item at a first bitrate and one or more segments of a second content item at the first bitrate [playlist for each bit rate, segment playlists, paras. 111, 127 et seq., paras. 142-153, Figs. 3F, 3G, 3H] and wherein the second manifest file comprises one or more segments of the first content item at a second bitrate and one or more segments of the second content item at the second bitrate [a second playlist is created for different bit rates; “versions" are related ads having different bit rate; paras. 106, 111, 117, 120, 121, 136, 137, 142-153 Figs. 1, 2, 3A-H].
19. Kilar teaches a system comprising: a computing device configured to:
receive, from a device, a first request for a first content item [media player/user device 102 selects and requests appropriate bit rate, paras. 106, 111, 117, 120, 121, 125, 127, 137, 140-153; Figs. 3A, 3B];
cause, based on the first content item, a first manifest file for the first content item to be generated [playlist for each bit rate, segment playlists, paras. 111, 127 et seq., paras. 142-153, Figs. 3F, 3G, 3H];
associate the first manifest file with an identifier [manifest is sent based on request including identifier i.e. manifest is “associated” with the identifier, paras. 93, 98, 125, 127];
send, to the device, the first manifest file [playlist is transmitted by server, paras. 111, 128, 130, 131, 147-153];
receive, from the device, a second request for the first content item, wherein the second request comprises the identifier [user device determines and requests if a second (higher or lower) bit rate is necessary, paras. 106, 117, 120, 121; requests for content include user device identifier, paras. 93, 98, 127]; and
cause, based on the identifier, a second manifest file for the first content item to be generated [a second playlist is created for different bit rates; “versions" are related ads having different bit rate; paras. 106, 111, 117, 120, 121, 136, 137, 142-153 Figs. 1, 2, 3A-H]; and
the device configured to:
send the first request for the first content item [paras. 106, 111, 117, 120, 121, 125, 127, 137, 140-153; Figs. 3A, 3B];
receive the first manifest file [playlist is received, paras. 111, 128, 130, 131, 147-153]; and
send the second request for the first content item [user device determines and requests if a second (higher or lower) bit rate is necessary, paras. 106, 117, 120, 121; requests for content include user device identifier, paras. 93, 98, 127].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights