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 18/979,910 filed 12/13/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Instant Application 18/979,910 independent claims 1, 7, 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claims 1, 8, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12200319, independent claims 21, 28, 35 of U.S. Patent No. 11910069, and independent claims 1, 9, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11336970 in combination with dependent claims (see table below). Instant Application 18/979,910 independent claims 1, 7, 13 are not patentably distinct from 1, 8, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12200319, independent claims 21, 28, 35 of U.S. Patent No. 11910069, and independent claims 1, 9, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11336970, the instant claims differ from parent claims in reciting watermark insertion rather than watermark detection and crediting. However, watermark insertion is an obvious preceding step to watermark detection and crediting, and the claims are directed to complementary portions of the same commercial monitoring process. Although the instant claims are broader in scope than the parent claims, the breadth arises from omission of specific implementation details preciously claimed, rather than from a different inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patentably distinct (see table below).
Instant Application 18/979,910
Parent Pat 12200319
Not Patentably Distinct
Independent Claims 1, 7, 13:
detecting that a portion of a media broadcast signal corresponds to a flexible commercial insertion event in which a flexible commercial is inserted in the portion of the media broadcast signal; and
detecting that a portion of a media broadcast signal corresponds to a flexible commercial insertion event in which a flexible commercial is inserted in the portion of the media broadcast signal; and
encoding the portion of the media broadcast signal including the flexible commercial with one or more watermarks that identify the portion of the media broadcast signal as corresponding to the flexible commercial insertion event.
encoding the portion of the media broadcast signal including the flexible commercial with one or more watermarks that identify the portion of the media broadcast signal as corresponding to the flexible commercial insertion event.
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 6
Independent Claims 1, 8, 15:
identifying a bridge watermark in metering data,
wherein a bridge watermark indicates that a distributor inserted at least one commercial into media content at a flexible insertion location; and
identifying a bridge watermark in metering data,
crediting, based on identifying the bridge watermark, audience exposure to a flexible commercial crediting metric.
Claim 2
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 7
Analysis:
.
Detecting a flexible commercial insertion event and identifying a bridge watermark are directed to identifying the same flexible commercial insertion activity using complementary techniques. This difference would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Both limitations determine that a commercial was inserted at a flexible insertion location. The use of a bridge watermark to make this determination is an obvious implementation detail.
Encoding a watermark identifying a flexible commercial insertion event is an obvious preceding step to metering data.
Crediting audience exposure based on a detected watermark represents a downstream use of the encoded watermark and would have been obvious once watermark encoding is implemented.
Adds a refinement within the same watermark-based commercial monitoring technique; an obvious variation of the parent claim.
Recites additional water-related details that corresponds to and are an obvious implementation of the parent dependent claim.
Further limits the same watermark encoding/detection framework without introducing a patentably distinct feature.
Specifies predictable watermark handling behavior that aligns with the parent’s refinement of the same process.
Adds downstream usage details of watermark information that are obvious extensions of the parent dependent claim.
Instant Application 18/979,910
Parent Pat 11910069
Not Patentably Distinct
Independent Claims 1, 12, 20:
detecting that a portion of a media broadcast signal corresponds to a flexible commercial insertion event in which a flexible commercial is inserted in the portion of the media broadcast signal; and
encoding the portion of the media broadcast signal including the flexible commercial with one or more watermarks that identify the portion of the media broadcast signal as corresponding to the flexible commercial insertion event.
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 6
Independent Claims 21, 28, 35:
detect that a portion of a media broadcast signal corresponds to a flexible commercial insertion opportunity in which one or more flexible commercials are to be inserted in the portion of the media broadcast signal, the one or more flexible commercials to replace one or more existing commercials included in the portion of the media broadcast signal;
insert a first flexible commercial of the one or more flexible commercials in the portion of the media broadcast signal, the first flexible commercial encoded with one or more first watermarks that identify the first flexible commercial; and encode the portion of the media broadcast signal including the first flexible commercial with one or more second watermarks that identify the portion of the media broadcast signal as corresponding to the flexible commercial insertion opportunity, the one or more second watermarks to not identify the first flexible commercial.
Claim 22
Claim 23
Claim 24
Claim 25
Claim 26
Analysis
Both limitations identify a flexible commercial insertion point within a media broadcast signal. The distinction between an insertion event and an insertion opportunity is a minor semantic variation that does not create a patentably distinct technical feature.
The parent recites a more detailed watermarking scheme, including first and second watermarks, but these are predictable refinements of the same watermark encoding concept recited in the instant claim and do not render the claims patentably distinct.
Not Patentably Distinct
Not Patentably Distinct
Not Patentably Distinct
Not Patentably Distinct
Not Patentably Distinct
Instant Application 18/979,910
Parent Pat 11336970
Not Patentably Distinct
Independent Claims 1, 12, 20:
detecting that a portion of a media broadcast signal corresponds to a flexible commercial insertion event in which a flexible commercial is inserted in the portion of the media broadcast signal; and
encoding the portion of the media broadcast signal including the flexible commercial with one or more watermarks that identify the portion of the media broadcast signal as corresponding to the flexible commercial insertion event.
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 6
Independent Claims 1, 9, 15
detect that a first media watermark decoded from a television broadcast signal is a first bridge watermark that indicates a portion of the television broadcast signal including the first bridge watermark is associated with a flexible commercial insertion event, the flexible commercial insertion event corresponding to insertion of a flexible commercial in the portion of the television broadcast signal, the first bridge watermark including a first timestamp to represent a time of the first bridge watermark in the television broadcast signal, the first bridge watermark including a type value to identify the first bridge watermark as being associated with the flexible commercial insertion event;
determine a duration of the portion of the television broadcast signal associated with the flexible commercial insertion event based on a difference between the first timestamp of the first bridge watermark and a second timestamp of a second bridge watermark decoded from the portion of the television broadcast signal, the second bridge watermark including the same type value as the first bridge watermark; and
a commercial metric calculator to credit audience exposure associated with the portion of the television broadcast signal to a flexible commercial crediting metric in response to a determination that the first media watermark is the first bridge watermark.
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 8
Both claims identify a flexible commercial insertion event within a broadcast signal. The parent claim further specifies detection via a bridge watermark with time stamp and type value, which represents an obvious implementation of identifying a flexible commercial insertion event.
The parent claim recites downstream processing of the same watermark-based insertion event, including duration determination and audience crediting, which are obvious downstream uses of encoded watermark identifying the insertion event.
Not Patentably Distinct
Not Patentably Distinct
Not Patentably Distinct
Not Patentably Distinct
Not Patentably Distinct
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brueck et al., Pub No US 2014/0259048 (hereafter Brueck) and further in view Ramaswamy et al., Pat No US 9,609,034 (hereafter Ramaswamy).
Regarding Claim 1, Brueck discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a processor, cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
detecting that a portion of a media broadcast signal corresponds to a flexible commercial insertion event [para.0070: Discloses receives a first indication with a start time for the advertisement break. This teaches detecting an advertisement break that defines where an advertisement is to be inserted, corresponding to a flexible commercial insertion event.] in which a flexible commercial is inserted in the portion of the media broadcast signal [para.0071: Discloses inserts an advertisement into the stream at the start time of the advertisement break. The advertisement is inserted into the identified portion of the media stream corresponding to the detected insertion event.]; and
Brueck does not explicitly disclose encoding the portion of the media broadcast signal including the flexible commercial with one or more watermarks that identify the portion of the media broadcast signal as corresponding to the flexible commercial insertion event. However, in analogous art, Ramaswamy discloses transcoding the first metadata into second metadata… capable of being inserted into at least one of an audio signal or a video signal… inserting the second metadata into… the audio signal or the video signal [ABSTARCT]. Thus, teaches embedding detectable metadata into the audio/video, which reads on encoding the signal with one or more watermarks. Figure 6 item 132 discloses generating watermark and inserting into media content. Also disclosed, second metadata … detectable by the metering device [ABSTRACT]. The embedded metadata identifies the marked portion of the signal, allowing the portion corresponding to the insertion event to be 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 Brueck with this feature, as taught by Ramaswamy in order to yield predictable result such as allowing downstream devices to recognize the portion of the media corresponding to the insertion event during or after presentation [Ramaswamy: col.16 lines 1-3].
Regarding Claim 2, the combined teachings of Brueck and Ramaswamy discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more watermarks do not identify the flexible commercial [Brueck – ABSTRACT: Discloses receives a first indication of a start time of an advertisement break; and Ramaswamy – col.16 lines 1-3: Discloses digitally insert the encoded metadata into the bitstream of the transcoded media content to be output by the transcoder (FIG.7A block 206).]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, the combined teachings of Brueck and Ramaswamy discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, and Brueck further discloses wherein the portion of the media broadcast signal comprises one or more existing commercials; and the set of operations further comprising: replacing the one or more existing commercials with the flexible commercial [para.0071: Discloses inserts an advertisement into the stream at the start time of the advertisement break; and para.0079: Discloses replacing with other advertisements.].
Regarding Claim 4, the combined teachings of Brueck and Ramaswamy discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, and Brueck further discloses the set of operations further comprising:
inserting the flexible commercial in the portion of the media broadcast signal [para.0071: Discloses inserts an advertisement into the stream at the start time of the advertisement break.].
Regarding Claim 5, the combined teachings of Brueck and Ramaswamy discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 4, and Ramaswamy further discloses wherein the flexible commercial is encoded with another watermark that identifies the flexible commercial [col.16 lines 1-3: Discloses digitally insert the encoded metadata into the bitstream of the transcoded media content to be output by the transcoder (FIG.7A block 206).]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 6, the combined teachings of Brueck and Ramaswamy discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 5, and Ramaswamy further discloses wherein the other watermark is encoded in a first watermarking layer and the one or more watermarks are encoded in a second watermarking layer, different than the first watermarking layer [col.16 lines 1-3: Discloses digitally insert the encoded metadata into the bitstream of the transcoded media content to be output by the transcoder (FIG.7A block 206). Using different embedded metadata for different identifications purposes represents a predictable use of known metadata insertion techniques.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 7, Brueck discloses a computing system [para.0027: Discloses a general-purpose computing system.] comprising:
a processor [para.0146: Discloses processor.]; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [FIG.6: Discloses a computer-readable medium item 624; and claim 15: Discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium], having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor [para.0148: Discloses stored instruction that are executed by a processor.], cause performance of a set of operations comprising:
detecting that a portion of a media broadcast signal corresponds to a flexible commercial insertion event [para.0070: Discloses receives a first indication with a start time for the advertisement break. This teaches detecting an advertisement break that defines where an advertisement is to be inserted, corresponding to a flexible commercial insertion event.] in which a flexible commercial is inserted in the portion of the media broadcast signal [para.0071: Discloses inserts an advertisement into the stream at the start time of the advertisement break. The advertisement is inserted into the identified portion of the media stream corresponding to the detected insertion event.]; and
Brueck does not explicitly disclose encoding the portion of the media broadcast signal with one or more watermarks that identify the portion of the media broadcast signal as corresponding to the flexible commercial insertion event. However, in analogous art, Ramaswamy discloses transcoding the first metadata into second metadata… capable of being inserted into at least one of an audio signal or a video signal… inserting the second metadata into… the audio signal or the video signal [ABSTARCT]. Thus, teaches embedding detectable metadata into the audio/video, which reads on encoding the signal with one or more watermarks. Figure 6 item 132 discloses generating watermark and inserting into media content. Also disclosed, second metadata … detectable by the metering device [ABSTRACT]. The embedded metadata identifies the marked portion of the signal, allowing the portion corresponding to the insertion event to be 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 Brueck with this feature, as taught by Ramaswamy in order to yield predictable result such as allowing downstream devices to recognize the portion of the media corresponding to the insertion event during or after presentation [Ramaswamy: col.16 lines 1-3].
Regarding Claim 8, the combined teachings of Brueck and Ramaswamy discloses the computing system of claim 7, and further discloses wherein the one or more watermarks do not identify the flexible commercial [Brueck – ABSTRACT: Discloses receives a first indication of a start time of an advertisement break; and Ramaswamy – col.16 lines 1-3: Discloses digitally insert the encoded metadata into the bitstream of the transcoded media content to be output by the transcoder (FIG.7A block 206).]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 9, the combined teachings of Brueck and Ramaswamy discloses the computing system of claim 7, and Ramaswamy further discloses wherein the detecting that a portion of the media broadcast signal corresponds to the flexible commercial insertion event comprises detecting one or more cue tones in the media broadcast signal [ABSTARCT: Discloses the second metadata is detectable by the metering device. This teaches detecting embedded metadata in a media signal. Under BRI, embedded detectable metadata reads on detecting cue tones indicating an insertion.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 10, the combined teachings of Brueck and Ramaswamy discloses the computing system of claim 9, and Ramaswamy further discloses the set of operations further comprising:
inserting, in response to a detection of the one or more cue tones, the flexible commercial in the portion of the media broadcast signal [col.16 lines 1-3: Discloses digitally insert the encoded metadata into the bitstream of the transcoded media content to be output by the transcoder (FIG.7A block 206). This teaches insertion into the media bitstream in response to detected metadata. Under BRI, inserting content in response to detected cues meets the claimed limitation.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Regarding Claim 11, the combined teachings of Brueck and Ramaswamy discloses the computing system of claim 7, and Ramaswamy further discloses wherein the flexible commercial is encoded with another watermark that identifies the flexible commercial [col.16 lines 1-3: Discloses digitally insert the encoded metadata into the bitstream of the transcoded media content to be output by the transcoder (FIG.7A block 206).]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 12, the combined teachings of Brueck and Ramaswamy discloses the computing system of claim 11, and further discloses wherein the other watermark is encoded in a first watermarking layer and the one or more watermarks are encoded in a second watermarking layer, different than the first watermarking layer [Brueck - para.0070: Discloses receives a first indication with a start time for the advertisement break; and Ramaswamy – col.16 lines 1-3: Discloses digitally insert the encoded metadata into the bitstream of the transcoded media content to be output by the transcoder (FIG.7A block 206). Thus, Brueck teaches separating insertion-event signaling from advertisement content. Ramaswamy teaches embedding encoded metadata into media bitstream. Under BRI, encoding different identifiers for different purposes in separate portions or layers of the media signal reads on encoding watermarks in different watermarking layers. Using different layers to carry different identifiers is a predictable and routine signal-processing design choice.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 11.
Regarding Claim 13, Brueck discloses a method comprising:
detecting that a portion of a media broadcast signal corresponds to a flexible commercial insertion event [para.0070: Discloses receives a first indication with a start time for the advertisement break. This teaches detecting an advertisement break that defines where an advertisement is to be inserted, corresponding to a flexible commercial insertion event.] in which a flexible commercial is inserted in the portion of the media broadcast signal [para.0071: Discloses inserts an advertisement into the stream at the start time of the advertisement break. The advertisement is inserted into the identified portion of the media stream corresponding to the detected insertion event.]; and
Brueck does not explicitly disclose encoding the portion of the media broadcast signal including the flexible commercial with one or more watermarks that identify the portion of the media broadcast signal as corresponding to the flexible commercial insertion event. However, in analogous art, Ramaswamy discloses transcoding the first metadata into second metadata… capable of being inserted into at least one of an audio signal or a video signal… inserting the second metadata into… the audio signal or the video signal [ABSTARCT]. Thus, teaches embedding detectable metadata into the audio/video, which reads on encoding the signal with one or more watermarks. Figure 6 item 132 discloses generating watermark and inserting into media content. Also disclosed, second metadata … detectable by the metering device [ABSTRACT]. The embedded metadata identifies the marked portion of the signal, allowing the portion corresponding to the insertion event to be 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 Brueck with this feature, as taught by Ramaswamy in order to yield predictable result such as allowing downstream devices to recognize the portion of the media corresponding to the insertion event during or after presentation [Ramaswamy: col.16 lines 1-3].
Regarding Claim 14, the combined teachings of Brueck and Ramaswamy discloses the method of claim 13, and Brueck further discloses wherein the portion of the media broadcast signal comprises one or more existing commercials [para.0071: Discloses inserts an advertisement into the stream at the start time of the advertisement break; and para.0079: Discloses replacing with other advertisements.].
Regarding Claim 15, the combined teachings of Brueck and Ramaswamy discloses the method of claim 14, and Brueck further discloses further comprising: replacing the one or more existing commercials with the flexible commercial [para.0071: Discloses inserts an advertisement into the stream at the start time of the advertisement break; and para.0079: Discloses replacing with other advertisements.].
Regarding Claim 16, the combined teachings of Brueck and Ramaswamy discloses the method of claim 13, and further discloses wherein the one or more watermarks do not identify the flexible commercial [Brueck – ABSTRACT: Discloses receives a first indication of a start time of an advertisement break; and Ramaswamy – col.16 lines 1-3: Discloses digitally insert the encoded metadata into the bitstream of the transcoded media content to be output by the transcoder (FIG.7A block 206).]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 13.
Regarding Claim 17, the combined teachings of Brueck and Ramaswamy discloses the method of claim 16, and Ramaswamy further discloses wherein the detecting that a portion of the media broadcast signal corresponds to the flexible commercial insertion event comprises detecting one or more cue tones in the media broadcast signal [ABSTARCT: Discloses the second metadata is detectable by the metering device. This teaches detecting embedded metadata in a media signal. Under BRI, embedded detectable metadata reads on detecting cue tones indicating an insertion.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 16.
Regarding Claim 18, the combined teachings of Brueck and Ramaswamy discloses the method of claim 17, and Ramaswamy further discloses further comprising:
inserting, in response to a detection of the one or more cue tones, the flexible commercial in the portion of the media broadcast signal [col.16 lines 1-3: Discloses digitally insert the encoded metadata into the bitstream of the transcoded media content to be output by the transcoder (FIG.7A block 206). This teaches insertion into the media bitstream in response to detected metadata. Under BRI, inserting content in response to detected cues meets the claimed limitation.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 17.
Regarding Claim 19, the combined teachings of Brueck and Ramaswamy discloses the method of claim 13, and Ramaswamy further discloses wherein the flexible commercial is encoded with another watermark that identifies the flexible commercial [col.16 lines 1-3: Discloses digitally insert the encoded metadata into the bitstream of the transcoded media content to be output by the transcoder (FIG.7A block 206).]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 13.
Regarding Claim 20, the combined teachings of Brueck and Ramaswamy discloses the method of claim 19, and further discloses wherein the other watermark is encoded in a first watermarking layer and the one or more watermarks are encoded in a second watermarking layer, different than the first watermarking layer [Brueck - para.0070: Discloses receives a first indication with a start time for the advertisement break; and Ramaswamy – col.16 lines 1-3: Discloses digitally insert the encoded metadata into the bitstream of the transcoded media content to be output by the transcoder (FIG.7A block 206). Thus, Brueck teaches separating insertion-event signaling from advertisement content. Ramaswamy teaches embedding encoded metadata into media bitstream. Under BRI, encoding different identifiers for different purposes in separate portions or layers of the media signal reads on encoding watermarks in different watermarking layers. Using different layers to carry different identifiers is a predictable and routine signal-processing design choice.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jose M. Gonzalez (US 2018/0376197) – Discloses techniques for inserting secondary media items into primary media streams [para.0031] such as commercials [para.0037]. The insertion signal, e.g., a cue tone, is encoded in the primary media stream and indicates to the media client 102 that a secondary programming timeslot is about to begin. At the start of the secondary media programming timeslot, the media client can then switch from playing the primary media stream to playing the one or more secondary media items for the duration of the timeslot [para.0041].
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