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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-21 have been examined.
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 2-4, 6-17, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGowan 20120066386 in view of Dhruv (20120198492).
Claims 2, 12, 15. McGowan discloses a method performed by a client device in communication with a system comprising at least one service provider server and at least one advertisement engine server, the method comprising:
requesting a first manifest for live media content (see end user accesses channel and then manifest for that channel is generated [69]; also for live see streaming at [87]; also see receive request for access at Fig. 10, item 1025 and generate manifest at item 1040);
receiving the first manifest for the live media content from the at least one service provider server, wherein the first manifest comprises (see end user accesses channel and then manifest for that channel is generated [69]):
a plurality of URIs corresponding to a plurality of chunks of the live media content (see manifest and URL at [47, 69, 70, 79, 87, 95-97]; also see manifest and chunk and subset at [5]); and
an indication of a first time in the live media content designated for advertising content (see ad and chunk and insert at [43]; see ad placement at [27]; see time period when media item permitted [5]; when playback of particular media items permissible at [50, 51]; rules on time period, starting time for media item/content at [53]);
generating for display a chunk of the plurality of chunks of the live media content based at least in part on data received by accessing a URI corresponding to the chunk of the plurality of chunks of the live media content (see URL and chunk at [57, 87, 96, 97]);
transmitting, while the chunk of the plurality of chunks of the live media content is being displayed and before reaching the first time, an application programming interface (API) call (see API at [35, 36]; see API that allows rules to be modified at [68]);
receiving, based at least in part on transmitting the API call to the at least one advertisement engine server, a manifest comprising a plurality of URIs corresponding to a plurality of chunks of first advertising content for display at the first time (see API that allows rules to be modified at [68]; see ad and chunk and insert at [43]; see ad placement at [27]); and
generating for display, at the first time, a chunk of the plurality of chunks of the first advertising content based at least in part on data received by accessing the URI corresponding to the chunk of the plurality of chunks of the first advertising content (see ad and chunk and insert at [43]; see ad placement at [27]; note manifest and chunk and URI/URL citations above).
McGowan does not explicitly disclose a second manifest, or a second manifest corresponding to chunks of first advertising content. However, McGowan discloses Fig. 10 and repeat transfer of manifest at step 1050 and also dynamically creating manifest [73]. And, Dhruv discloses a first manifest for the video content and then an updated or 2nd manifest file based on updated ad content to be inserted/stitched [7, 8, 35, 38, 42]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Dhruv’s updated/2nd manifest file with ad insert/stich info to McGowan’s manifest file and inserting ad content. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better insert ad content.
In further regards to claim 12, chunk reads on segment and subset. In further regards to claim 12, McGowan further discloses transmitting, while the segment of the of the second subset of segments is being displayed and before reaching the first time, a request to the at least one advertisement engine server (see streaming content from other systems at [87] and also insert ad content at [43] and see ad placement at [27).
Claim 3, 13, 16. McGowan does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 2, further comprising: receiving an identification of a second time in the live media content designated for advertising content; transmitting, while displaying another chunk of the plurality of chunks of the live media content and before reaching the second time, a second API call to the at least one advertisement engine server; and receiving, based at least in part on transmitting the second API call to the at least one advertisement engine server, a third manifest comprising a plurality of URIs corresponding to a plurality of chunks of a content for display at the second time, wherein the third manifest is dynamically generated based at least in part on information associated with the client device. However, McGowan discloses Fig. 10 and repeat transfer of manifest at step 1050 and also dynamically creating manifest [73] and using APIs (see citations above). And, Dhruv discloses using APIs [24] a first manifest for the video content and then an updated or 2nd manifest file based on updated ad content to be inserted/stitched [7, 8, 35, 38, 42]. And, Dhruv discloses multiple different ad insertion points (Fig. 4) and also a new manifest file for each ad slot in the presentation, Fig. 5, item 502 and 512 Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Dhruv’s updated/3nd manifest file with ad insert/stich info to McGowan’s manifest file and inserting ad content. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better insert ad content where multiple ad slots are present.
Claim 4, 14, 17. McGowan does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 3, further comprising: generating a play session token for consumption of the live media content; and wherein a generation of the second manifest comprising the plurality of URIs corresponding to the plurality of chunks of the first advertising content and the generation of the third manifest comprising the plurality of URIs corresponding to the plurality of chunks of the second advertising content are coordinated based on the play session token. However, McGowan discloses the manifest and URI/URL features (see above) and also discloses using tokens [67]. And, Dhruv discloses segments and tokenizing which reads on sessions and tokens [33]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Dhruv’s tokenizing and segments to McGowan’s playback and tokens. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better control content playback.
Claim 6, 19. McGowan further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the second manifest is dynamically generated based at least in part on information associated with the client device (The combination renders obvious the second manifest and McGowan discloses geographic region of the client rules [5]). Additionally/alternatively, Dhruv discloses the second manifest is dynamically generated based at least in part on information associated with the client device (see select particular ads and ad chunks on the fly at [35]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Dhruv’s ads on the fly based on the client to McGowan’s inserting ads. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better insert relevant ads.
Claim 7, 20. McGowan does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the second manifest comprises one or more instructions for predetermined behaviors to be implemented on the client device during the display of the plurality of chunks of the first advertising content, the predetermined behaviors comprising at least one of: displaying an interstitial banner, displaying an overlay advertisement, blocking fast-forward controls, enabling interactive content, or providing a tracking beacon. However, Dhruv discloses interstitial content [4] and ads and interactive media [28] and ads [28]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Dhruv’s ads with instructions for behaviors to McGowan’s presenting ads. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better present ads.
Claim 8, 21. McGowan further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the second manifest is generated based on stored rules and identifying information associated with the client device (The combination renders obvious the second manifest and McGowan discloses geographic region of the client rules [5]). Additionally/alternatively, Dhruv discloses the second manifest is generated based on stored rules and identifying information associated with the client device (see select particular ads and ad chunks on the fly at [35]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Dhruv’s rules and ads on the fly based on the client to McGowan’s inserting ads. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better insert relevant ads.
Claim 9. McGowan further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the identifying information comprises geographical data associated with the client device ([5]).
Claim 10. McGowan further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the second manifest is generated based on at least one of: a title of the live media content, a duration of the live media content, or a genre of the live media content (see ad and chunk and insert at [43] and see ad placement at [27]; see time period at [5, 51], see manifest and length of playback data at [47]; see the combination above that renders obvious the second manifest).
Claim 11. McGowan does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the second manifest comprises one or more tracking URLs for monitoring at least one of: playing performance of the advertising content, advertisement impressions, or user interactions with the advertising content. However, Dhruv discloses interactive media [28] ability to interact with video [33] and tracking viewing history and purchasing history [35] and using links and URIs [24]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Dhruv’s ads and tracking and targeting to McGowan’s inserting ads. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better insert relevant ads.
Claims 5, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGowan 20120066386 in view of Dhruv (20120198492) in view of Mak (20140136336).
Claims 5, 18. McGowan does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 2, further comprising: configuring a tracking beacon for monitoring playback parameters of the live media content; and transmitting data gathered by the tracking beacon to at least one server. However, Mak discloses streaming content and ad inserting [2] and tracking beacons and reporting the data to the server [36, 60, 61]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Mak’s content streaming and ad inserting and tracking beacons to McGowan’s inserting ads. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better insert relevant ads.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a) see related case 18761028 (Note the 3 Party Submission in that case on 3/24/25 with Patel, Asam, Dhruv (20120116883 20120198492 9380092);
b) Examiner notes ALLOWED parent patent CON applications 14069961 and 18357865;
c) note other PRIOR ART patent by same inventor McGowan patent 8145782 that has pg_pub 20120005312; and PRIOR ART to McGowan 20120066386 that has ad insertion and manifest files; and McGowan 20120179788 that has a priority art date to 7/12/12 and is prior art depending on the current application provisional;
d) prior art Ma has provisional support for figures 1-7a but Not Fig. 7b; Ma has offset.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTHUR DURAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 7-5pm.
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 Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/ARTHUR DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 1/27/26