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, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 14-18 and 20 are amended. Claims 1-6, 8-18 and 20 are pending in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8-18 and 20 have been fully 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 1-2, 11-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panje (of record) in view of Gregotski (of record) and O’Malley (of record).
Regarding claim 1, 11, and 17, Panje discloses a system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to perform operations (see Panje, at least at [0050]-[0057], Fig. 8, and other relates text), the operations comprising:
receiving, originating from a client device, a manifest request (see Panje, at least at [0042], [0045]-[0046], and other related text) comprising an identifier for a pre-encoded media asset and a first universal resource locator for a live input stream (see Panje, at least at [0002], [0042], [0045]-[0046], and other related text); and
in response to an absence of the live input stream or an incompatibility of the live input stream with the client device (i.e., incompatible due to lack of resources, see Panje, at least at [0002], [0042], [0045]-[0046], and other related text), providing a second universal resource locator for the pre-encoded media asset for streaming, via a media player of the client device, the pre-encoded media asset in place of the live input stream (see Panje, at least at [0002], [0042], [0045]-[0046], and other related text).
Panje does not specifically disclose the manifest request associated a live media output stream, or a content placement location defined by indexed metadata associated with the live input stream.
In an analogous art relating to a system for content provisioning, Gregotski discloses a manifest request associated a live media output stream (see Gregotski, at least at [0010]-[0016], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Panje to include the limitations as taught by Gregotski for the advantage of more efficiently allowing various types of content to be provisioned to users.
Panje in view of Gregotski does not specifically disclose a content placement location defined by indexed metadata associated with the live input stream.
In an analogous art relating to a system for provisioning content, O’Malley discloses a content placement location defined by indexed metadata associated with the live input stream (see O’Malley, at least at [0042], [0051]-[0052], [0058], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Panje in view of Gregotski to include the limitations as taught by O’Malley for the advantage of more efficiently provisioning appropriate content to a user.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Panje in view of Gregotski and O’Malley discloses wherein the incompatibility of the live input stream with the client device is determined based at least in part on one or more client-specific parameters of the manifest request (i.e., specific bit rate requested by client, see Panje, at least at [0042], [0046], and other related text).
Regarding claim 6, 16, and 18, Panje in view of Gregotski and O’Malley discloses determining a placement of the pre-encoded media asset within a live media output stream manifest of the live media output stream (see O’Malley, at least at [0015]-[0017], [0024], [0041], [0050]-[0054], Figs. 2-3, and other related text);
inserting an input manifest of the pre-encoded media asset into the live media output stream manifest based on the placement to generate a final live output stream manifest (see O’Malley, at least at [0067]-[0070], [0079], and other related text); and
publishing the final live output stream manifest for access by the client device (see O’Malley, at least at [0014], [0067]-[0070], [0079], [0103], [0117], [0121], and other related text).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Panje in view of Gregotski and O’Malley discloses wherein the placement is determined based on indexed metadata for the live media output stream manifest (see O’Malley, at least at [0050]-[0054], and other related text).
Regarding claim 10, Panje in view of Gregotski and O’Malley discloses modifying a programming schedule of the live media output stream based on the pre-encoded media asset (see O’Malley, at least at [0070], and other related text).
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panje (of record) in view of Gregotski (of record) and O’Malley (of record), as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of and Knothe (of record).
Regarding claim 3 and 13, Panje in view of Gregotski and O’Malley does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more client-specific parameters comprise one or more rules governed by at least one of a geolocation of the client device or a current position of playback of the live media output stream.
In an analogous art relating to a system for provisioning content, Knothe discloses one or more client-specific parameters comprising one or more rules governed by at least one of a geolocation of the client device or a current position of playback of the live media output stream (see Knothe, at least at [0025], [0033], [0038], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Panje in view of Gregotski and O’Malley to include the limitations as taught by Knothe for the advantage of more efficiently provisioning appropriate content to a user.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Panje in view of Gregotski and O’Malley, and further in view of Knothe discloses wherein the incompatibility of the live input stream with the client device is determined (see Panje, at least at [0042], [0045]-[0046], and other related text) based at least in part of the geolocation of the client device and availability rights of the live input stream (see Knothe, at least at [0020]-[0021], and other related text).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panje (of record) in view of Gregotski (of record), O’Malley (of record) and Knothe (of record), as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and further in view of Kalagi (of record).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Panje in view of Gregotski, O’Malley and Knothe discloses wherein the incompatibility of the live input stream with the client device is determined (see Panje, at least at [0002], [0042], [0045]-[0046], and other related text ), but does not specifically disclose determining based at least in part of the current position of playback of the live media output stream and availability rights of the live input stream.
In an analogous art relating to a system for content provisioning, Kalagi discloses capability determined based at least in part of the current position of playback of the live media output stream and availability rights of the live input stream (see Kalagi, at least at [0132], [0137]-[0139], [0143], [0156]-[0157], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Panje in view of Gregotski, O’Malley and Knothe to include the limitations as taught by Kalagi for the advantage of more efficiently provisioning appropriate content to a user.
Claims 8-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panje (of record) in view of Gregotski (of record) and O’Malley (of record), as applied to claims 7 and 19 above, and further in view of Gu (of record).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 20, Panje in view of Gregotski and O’Malley does not specifically disclose wherein the indexed metadata indicates one or more transition points within the live media output stream manifest.
In an analogous art relating to a system for provisioning content, Gu discloses indexed metadata indicates one or more transition points within a live media output stream manifest (see Gu, at least at col 5, line 60 – col 6, line 10, col 6, lines 10-27, and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Panje in view of Gregotski and O’Malley to include the limitations as taught by Gu for the advantage of more efficiently provisioning appropriate content to a user.
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 at 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