DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to communications filed 7/1/2026. Claims 1, 7-8, 11 and 17-19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 1-6 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph (of record) in view of Owen (of record), Gu (of record) and O’Malley et al. (US20150271234, hereinafter O’Malley).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 17, Joseph discloses system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to perform operations (see Joseph, at least at col 1, lines 35-53, and other related text), the operations comprising:
receiving, originating from a client device, an initial manifest request identifying a pre- encoded media asset (see Joseph, at least at col 2, lines 3-27 and lines 57-66, col 4, lines 4-16, col 8, lines 5-24, and other related text);
receiving, based on the initial manifest request, a pre-encoded media asset manifest (see Joseph, col 4, lines 47-56, col 8, lines 24-27, and other related text);
generating an initial pre-encoded media asset manifest from the pre-encoded media asset manifest based at least in part on the initial manifest request (see Joseph, col 4, lines 47-56, col 8, lines 49-56, and other related text), wherein the initial pre-encoded media asset manifest references a subset of a set of media segments of the pre-encoded media asset manifest (see Joseph, col 4, lines 47-56, col 8, lines 49-56, and other related text); and
providing the initial pre-encoded media asset manifest to the client device for playback (see Joseph, col 4, lines 47-56, col 8, lines 49-56, and other related text).
Joseph does not specifically disclose manifest metadata corresponding to the pre-encoded media asset, wherein the manifest metadata identifies a location or a timestamp within the pre-encoded media asset manifest for non- programming media content;
generating the initial pre-encoded manifest based at least in part on the manifest metadata;
or
subsequent to providing the initial pre-encoded media asset manifest the client device for playback, inserting, to the pre-encoded media asset manifest, one or more references to the non-programming media content based at least in part on the location or the timestamp within the pre-encoded media asset manifest.
In an analogous art relating to a system for content generation, Owen discloses metadata corresponding to a media asset, wherein the metadata identifies a location or a timestamp within the pre-encoded media asset for non-programming media content (see Owen, at least at [0022], [0038], and other related text);
generating an initial pre-encoded manifest based at least in part on the metadata (i.e., customized manifest, see Owen, at least at [0005], [0016], [0043], [0049], [0058], Fig. 5, and other related text); and
subsequent to generating the initial pre-encoded media asset manifest (i.e., the customized manifest, see Owen, at least at [0005], [0016], [0043], [0049], [0058], Fig. 5, #580, and other related text), inserting, to the pre-encoded media asset manifest, one or more references to the non-programming media content based at least in part on the location or the timestamp within the pre-encoded media asset manifest (i.e., original manifest, see Owen, at least [0005], [0016], [0052], [0057]-[0058], at Fig. 5, #550, and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Joseph to include the limitations as taught by Owen for the advantage of more efficiently providing diverse content to users.
Joseph in view of Owen does not specifically disclose manifest metadata corresponding to the pre-encoded media asset, wherein the manifest metadata identifies a location or a timestamp within the pre-encoded media asset manifest for non- programming media content;
generating the initial pre-encoded manifest based at least in part on the manifest metadata; or
subsequent to providing the initial pre-encoded media asset manifest the client device for playback, inserting, to the pre-encoded media asset manifest, one or more references to the non-programming media content.
In an analogous art relating to a system for content generation, Gu discloses manifest metadata corresponding to a pre-encoded media asset, wherein the manifest metadata identifies a location or a timestamp within the pre-encoded media asset manifest for non- programming media content (see Gordon, at least at col 3, lines 58-65, col 5, lines 42-65, col 6, line 57 – col 7, line 8, col 8, lines 30-40, and other related text); and
generating an initial pre-encoded manifest based at least in part on the manifest metadata (see Gordon, at least at col 6, lines 57-67, col 8, lines 30-40, and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Joseph in view of Owen to include the limitations as taught by Gu for the advantage of more efficiently providing diverse content to users.
Joseph in view of Owen and Gu does not specifically disclose subsequent to providing the initial pre-encoded media asset manifest the client device for playback, inserting, to the pre-encoded media asset manifest, one or more references to the non-programming media content.
In an analogous art relating to a system for dynamic media creation, O’Malley discloses subsequent to providing an initial pre-encoded media asset manifest to a client device for playback, inserting, to the pre-encoded media asset manifest, one or more references to non-programming media content (see O’Malley, at least at [0070], [01117], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Joseph in view of Owen and Gu to include the limitations as taught by O’Malley for the advantage of more efficiently providing diverse content to users and optimizing system resources.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 12 and 14, Joseph in view of Owen, Gu and O’Malley discloses wherein the manifest metadata comprises one or more non- programming indicators or one or more event markers that identify one or more locations for non-programming or event-based programming content within the pre-encoded media asset manifest (see Owen, at least at [0022], [0038], and other related text, and see Gordon, at least at col 3, lines 58-65, col 5, lines 42-65, col 6, line 57 – col 7, line 8, col 8, lines 30-40, and other related text).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Joseph in view of Owen, Gu and O’Malley discloses wherein the subset of a set of media segments comprises a subset of media segments up to the location or the timestamp within the pre-encoded media asset manifest for the non-programming media content (see Joseph, col 4, lines 47-56, col 8, lines 49-56, and other related text, and see Owen, at least at Fig. 4, and other related text).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Joseph in view of Owen, Gu and O’Malley discloses wherein the initial manifest request comprises at least one of a device identifier of the client device, a device type of the client device, a user preference, a preferred date or time of viewing the pre-encoded media asset, or a capacity of a playback buffer of the client device (see Joseph, at least at col 4, lines 4-30, and other related text).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Joseph in view of Owen, Gu and O’Malley discloses wherein the operations further comprise: determining the non-programming media content based at least in part on the device identifier of the client device, the device type of the client device, the user preference, the preferred date or time of viewing the pre-encoded media asset, or the capacity of the playback buffer of the client device (see Owen, at least at [0054], and other related text).
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph (of record) in view of Owen (of record), Gu (of record) and O’Malley (previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gouache et al. (EP2744215, hereinafter Gouache).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 17-18, Joseph in view of Owen, Gu and O’Malley does not specifically disclose wherein the initial manifest request is processed based at least in part on an instruction that enables an immediate playback of the pre-encoded media asset, and the operations further comprise generating the initial pre-encoded media asset manifest based at least in part on the instruction, and wherein the instruction that enables immediate playback is determined based at least in part on a capability of the client device.
In an analogous art relating to a system for content streaming, Gouache discloses wherein the initial manifest request is processed based at least in part on an instruction that enables an immediate playback of the pre-encoded media asset (see Gouache, at least at [0010], [0025]-[0026], and other related text), and the operations further comprise generating the initial pre-encoded media asset manifest based at least in part on the instruction, and wherein the instruction that enables immediate playback is determined based at least in part on a capability of the client device (see Gouache, at least at [0010], [0025]-[0026], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Joseph in view of Owen, Gu and O’Malley to include the limitations as taught by Gouache for the advantage of more efficiently providing diverse content to users.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph (of record) in view of Owen (of record), Gu (of record) and O’Malley (previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Phillips (of record).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Joseph in view of Owen, Gu and O’Malley does not specifically disclose wherein the subset of the set of media segments is based at least in part on a capacity of a playback buffer of the client device.
In an analogous art relating to a system for provisioning content, Phillips discloses wherein a subset of media segments is based at least in part on a capacity of a playback buffer of a client device (see Phillips, at least at [0030]-[0031], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Joseph in view of Owen, Gu and O’Malley to include the limitations as taught by Phillips for the advantage of more efficiently providing diverse content to users.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph (of record) in view of Owen (of record), Gu (of record) and O’Malley (previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spencer (of record).
Regarding claim 10, Joseph in view of Owen, Gu and O’Malley does not specifically disclose wherein the initial pre-encoded media asset manifest is independent of the non-programming media content to enable immediate playback of the pre-encoded media asset at the client device.
In an analogous art relating to a system provisioning content, Spencer discloses an initial pre-encoded media asset manifest is independent of non-programming media content to enable immediate playback of the pre-encoded media asset at a client device (see Spencer, at least at col 7, lines 20-39, and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Joseph in view of Owen, Gu and O’Malley to include the limitations as taught by Spencer for the advantage of more efficiently providing diverse content to users.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENEA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9524 and whose email address is Chenea.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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 Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. 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.
/CHENEA DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights