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
This Office Action is made in reply to Application 19/048,687 filed 07 February 2025. As originally filed, Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 16 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
• “an ordering or timing of content segments of the content and advertisement segments different compared to other manifests” in Claim 1 lines 6-7 should apparently be – an ordering or timing of content segments of the content and advertisement segments which is different compared to other manifests --;
• “one or” in Claim 3 line 1 should apparently be –one or more--;
• “an ordering or timing of content segments of the content and advertisement segments different compared to other manifests” in Claim 9 lines 10-11 should apparently be --an ordering or timing of content segments of the content and advertisement segments which is different compared to other manifests--;
• “one or” in Claim 11 line 1 should apparently be –one or more--;
• “an ordering or timing of content segments of the content and advertisement segments different compared to other manifests” in Claim 16 lines 8-9 should apparently be --an ordering or timing of content segments of the content and advertisement segments which is different compared to other manifests--;
• “one or” in Claim 18 line 2 should apparently be –one or more--. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) in Fig. 6 not mentioned in the description: 102, 104, 106, and 126. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “106” has been used to designate both VAST Response Engine (Fig. 6) and Computing Device (Fig. 6). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "900" (Fig. 9) and "800" ([0056]) have both been used to designate “the computing device”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the mass storage device 928 is depicted in Fig. 9 however the specification indicates “the mass storage device 928 depicted in Fig. 8”, ([0063]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5 – 6, 9, 13 - 14, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rabinowitz et al., US Pub. 2024/0185891 A1 (hereinafter Rabinowitz).
In regards to Claim 1, Rabinowitz discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device of a content distribution network, an off-band communication corresponding to a content (Rabinowitz: [0020], where a request is received by the playback engine via HTTP [off-band communication] and includes timeline, e.g., a start time and an end time; [0014], where a request is received from a client; [0026], where components can be in various configurations including external to the system);
generating, by the computing device and based on the off-band communication, a plurality of manifests corresponding to the content, wherein at least one manifest of the plurality of manifests includes an ordering or timing of content segments of the content and advertisement segments different compared to other manifests of the plurality of manifests (Rabinowitz: Fig. 3A and [0035], where a client device requests a new manifest for playback and specifies the recording ID and recording timeline; [0025], where in response to multiple playback requests, multiple unique manifests are generated; Fig. 2 and [0027], where several unique manifests are generated and include different segments and sequences of segments); and
sending, by the computing device, the plurality of manifests (Rabinowitz: [0014], where unique manifests are sent to requesting clients; Figs. 3A-3B, [0036] and [0038], where a unique manifest is sent to client device A 310-A and where the unique manifest is sent to client device B 310-B).
Regarding Claim 5, Rabinowitz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the off-band communication is generated based on channel provider information, scheduling information, content delivery platform information, region information, or a combination thereof (Rabinowitz: [0020], where a request is received by the playback engine via HTTP [off-band communication] and includes timeline, e.g., a start time and an end time; Fig. 3A and [0035], where a client device requests a new manifest for playback and specifies the recording ID and recording timeline).
Regarding Claim 6, Rabinowitz discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising:
determining, by the computing device and based on the off-band communication, the plurality of manifests to be generated based on the channel provider information, the scheduling information, the content delivery platform information, the region information, or the combination thereof (Rabinowitz: Fig. 3A and [0035], where a client device requests a new manifest for playback and specifies the recording ID and recording timeline; [0025], where in response to multiple playback requests, multiple unique manifests are generated; Fig. 2 and [0027], where several unique manifests are generated and include different segments and sequences of segments).
In regards to Claim 9, Rabinowitz discloses a computing device comprising:
one or more processors (Rabinowitz: [0014], one or more processors);
memory (Rabinowitz: [0014], one or more non-transitory memory); and
a set of computer-executable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the one or more processors (Rabinowitz: [0060], one or more instructions included in non-transitory memory); cause:
receiving, by the computing device, an off band communication corresponding to a content, wherein the computing device is of a content distribution network (Rabinowitz: [0020], where a request is received by the playback engine via HTTP [off-band communication] and includes timeline, e.g., a start time and an end time; [0014], where a request is received from a client; [0026], where components can be in various configurations including external to the system);
generating, by the computing device and based on the off-band communication, a plurality of manifests corresponding to the content, wherein at least one manifest of the plurality of manifests includes an ordering or timing of content segments of the content and advertisement segments different compared to other manifests of the plurality of manifests (Rabinowitz: Fig. 3A and [0035], where a client device requests a new manifest for playback and specifies the recording ID and recording timeline; [0025], where in response to multiple playback requests, multiple unique manifests are generated; Fig. 2 and [0027], where several unique manifests are generated and include different segments and sequences of segments); and
sending, by the computing device, the plurality of manifests (Rabinowitz: [0014], where unique manifests are sent to requesting clients; Figs. 3A-3B, [0036] and [0038], where a unique manifest is sent to client device A 310-A and where the unique manifest is sent to client device B 310-B).
Regarding Claim 13, Rabinowitz discloses the computing device of claim 9, wherein the off-band communication is generated based on channel provider information, scheduling information, content delivery platform information, region information, or a combination thereof (Rabinowitz: [0020], where a request is received by the playback engine via HTTP [off-band communication] and includes timeline, e.g., a start time and an end time; Fig. 3A and [0035], where a client device requests a new manifest for playback and specifies the recording ID and recording timeline).
Regarding Claim 14, Rabinowitz discloses the computing device of claim 13, wherein the set of computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause:
determining, by the computing device and based on the off-band communication, the plurality of manifests to be generated based on the channel provider information, the scheduling information, the content delivery platform information, the region information, or the combination thereof (Rabinowitz: Fig. 3A and [0035], where a client device requests a new manifest for playback and specifies the recording ID and recording timeline; [0025], where in response to multiple playback requests, multiple unique manifests are generated; Fig. 2 and [0027], where several unique manifests are generated and include different segments and sequences of segments).
In regards to Claim 16, Rabinowitz discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a set of computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (Rabinowitz: [0060], one or more instructions included in non-transitory memory; [0014], one or more processors), cause:
receiving, by a computing device of a content distribution network, an off-band communication corresponding to a content (Rabinowitz: [0020], where a request is received by the playback engine via HTTP [off-band communication] and includes timeline, e.g., a start time and an end time; [0014], where a request is received from a client; [0026], where components can be in various configurations including external to the system);
generating, by the computing device and based on the off-band communication, a plurality of manifests corresponding to the content, wherein at least one manifest of the plurality of manifests includes an ordering or timing of content segments of the content and advertisement segments different compared to other manifests of the plurality of manifests (Rabinowitz: Fig. 3A and [0035], where a client device requests a new manifest for playback and specifies the recording ID and recording timeline; [0025], where in response to multiple playback requests, multiple unique manifests are generated; Fig. 2 and [0027], where several unique manifests are generated and include different segments and sequences of segments); and
sending, by the computing device, the plurality of manifests (Rabinowitz: [0014], where unique manifests are sent to requesting clients; Figs. 3A-3B, [0036] and [0038], where a unique manifest is sent to client device A 310-A and where the unique manifest is sent to client device B 310-B).
Regarding Claim 20, Rabinowitz discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the off-band communication is generated based on channel provider information, scheduling information, content delivery platform information, region information, or a combination thereof (Rabinowitz: [0020], where a request is received by the playback engine via HTTP [off-band communication] and includes timeline, e.g., a start time and an end time; Fig. 3A and [0035], where a client device requests a new manifest for playback and specifies the recording ID and recording timeline).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 2, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinowitz in view of Chen et al., US Pub. 2025/0203160 A1 (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding Claim 2, Rabinowitz discloses the method of claim 1. But Rabinowitz fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the content comprises a Free advertising-supported streaming television (FAST) channel.
Chen from a similar endeavor teaches wherein the content comprises a Free advertising-supported streaming television (FAST) channel (Chen: [0034], where the media device may generate for display streamed video from a Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television channel, a FAST channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rabinowitz in view of Chen such that the requested media content as disclosed by Rabinowitz (Rabinowitz: Fig. 1A and [0016]) could include a Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television (FAST) channel, as disclosed by Chen (Chen: [0034]). Chen discloses storing video content including content manifests, (Chen: Fig. 2 and [0059]) and advertising video content is stored including content manifests, (Chen: Fig. 2 and [0062]). Using a FAST channel for streamed video can offer a better viewer interface for channel selection and improved user experience, (Chen: [0005], [0034] and Abstract).
Regarding Claim 10, Rabinowitz discloses the computing device of claim 9. But Rabinowitz fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the content comprises a Free advertising- supported streaming television (FAST) channel.
Chen from a similar endeavor teaches wherein the content comprises a Free advertising- supported streaming television (FAST) channel (Chen: [0034], where the media device may generate for display streamed video from a Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television channel, a FAST channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rabinowitz in view of Chen such that the requested media content as disclosed by Rabinowitz (Rabinowitz: Fig. 1A and [0016]) could include a Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television (FAST) channel, as disclosed by Chen (Chen: [0034]). Chen discloses storing video content including content manifests, (Chen: Fig. 2 and [0059]) and advertising video content is stored including content manifests, (Chen: Fig. 2 and [0062]). Using a FAST channel for streamed video can offer a better viewer interface for channel selection and improved user experience, (Chen: [0005], [0034] and Abstract).
Regarding Claim 17, Rabinowitz discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16. But Rabinowitz fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the content comprises a Free advertising-supported streaming television (FAST) channel.
Chen from a similar endeavor teaches wherein the content comprises a Free advertising-supported streaming television (FAST) channel (Chen: [0034], where the media device may generate for display streamed video from a Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television channel, a FAST channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rabinowitz in view of Chen such that the requested media content as disclosed by Rabinowitz (Rabinowitz: Fig. 1A and [0016]) could include a Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television (FAST) channel, as disclosed by Chen (Chen: [0034]). Chen discloses storing video content including content manifests, (Chen: Fig. 2 and [0059]) and advertising video content is stored including content manifests, (Chen: Fig. 2 and [0062]). Using a FAST channel for streamed video can offer a better viewer interface for channel selection and improved user experience, (Chen: [0005], [0034] and Abstract).
Claim(s) 3, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinowitz in view of Harb et al., US Pub. 2023/0088155 A1 (hereinafter Harb).
Regarding Claim 3, Rabinowitz discloses the method of claim 1. But Rabinowitz fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the plurality of manifests are sent to one or server side ad inserters (SSAIs) of the content distribution network.
Harb from a similar endeavor teaches wherein the plurality of manifests are sent to one or server side ad inserters (SSAIs) of the content distribution network (Harb: Fig. 6 and [0038], where links to video advertisement segments can be automatically added to the manifest file for the media content, e.g., when server-side ad insertion or SSAI is utilized).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rabinowitz in view of Harb such that the different unique manifests which are generated as disclosed by Rabinowitz and contain different segments (Rabinowitz: Fig. 2 and [0027]) could include advertisement segments which could be added, utilizing SSAI, to the manifest file, (Harb: [0008] and [0038]). This improves the presentation of advertisements, (Harb: Title).
Regarding Claim 11, Rabinowitz discloses the computing device of claim 9. But Rabinowitz fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the plurality of manifests are sent to one or server side ad inserters (SSAIs) of the content distribution network.
Harb from a similar endeavor teaches wherein the plurality of manifests are sent to one or server side ad inserters (SSAIs) of the content distribution network (Harb: Fig. 6 and [0038], where links to video advertisement segments can be automatically added to the manifest file for the media content, e.g., when server-side ad insertion or SSAI is utilized).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rabinowitz in view of Harb such that the different unique manifests which are generated as disclosed by Rabinowitz and contain different segments (Rabinowitz: Fig. 2 and [0027]) could include advertisement segments which could be added, utilizing SSAI, to the manifest file, (Harb: [0008] and [0038]). This improves the presentation of advertisements, (Harb: Title).
Regarding Claim 18, Rabinowitz discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16. But Rabinowitz fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the plurality of manifests are sent to one or server side ad inserters (SSAIs) of the content distribution network.
Harb from a similar endeavor teaches wherein the plurality of manifests are sent to one or server side ad inserters (SSAIs) of the content distribution network (Harb: Fig. 6 and [0038], where links to video advertisement segments can be automatically added to the manifest file for the media content, e.g., when server-side ad insertion or SSAI is utilized).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rabinowitz in view of Harb such that the different unique manifests which are generated as disclosed by Rabinowitz and contain different segments (Rabinowitz: Fig. 2 and [0027]) could include advertisement segments which could be added, utilizing SSAI, to the manifest file, (Harb: [0008] and [0038]). This improves the presentation of advertisements, (Harb: Title).
Claim(s) 4, 7 – 8, 12, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinowitz in view of Brown et al., US Pub. 2023/0091238 A1 (hereinafter Brown).
Regarding Claim 4, Rabinowitz discloses the method of claim 1. But Rabinowitz fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the off-band communication comprises a SCTE 224 communication.
Brown from a similar endeavor teaches wherein the off-band communication comprises a SCTE 224 communication (Brown: [0029], where SCTE 224, an out-of-band communication, can be used to communicate advertisement rules regarding how addressable advertisements should be selected and prioritized within a specific advertisement slot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rabinowitz in view of Brown such that the out-of-band communication of Rabinowitz (Rabinowitz: [0020]) could be via SCTE 224 as disclosed by Brown, (Brown: [0029]). One of the benefits of using out-of-band SCTE 224 messages is that they may carry potentially unlimited information to match audience and action pairs and greatly reduces the size of the SCTE 35 marker required with the video, (Brown: [0053]).
Regarding Claim 7, Rabinowitz discloses the method of claim 1. Rabinowitz fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: selecting the advertisement segments, for each of the plurality of manifests, based on the off-band communication.
Brown from a similar endeavor teaches selecting the advertisement segments, for each of the plurality of manifests, based on the off-band communication, (Brown: [0055], where because SCTE-224 information may be sent out-of-band and may be used differently for different distributors, a content provider may set up different ADSs for each distributor; [0070], where SCTE-224 messages include metadata, demographics of viewers located in a region and advertisement campaign information; [0057], where a content provider may provide rules via SCTE 224 messages specifying which advertisements to include).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rabinowitz in view of Brown such that the out-of-band communication of Rabinowitz (Rabinowitz: [0020]) could be via SCTE 224 as disclosed by Brown, (Brown: [0029]). One of the benefits of using out-of-band SCTE 224 messages is that they may carry potentially unlimited information to match audience and action pairs and greatly reduces the size of the SCTE 35 marker required with the video, (Brown: [0053]).
Regarding Claim 8, the combined teaching of Rabinowitz and Brown discloses the method of claim 7, wherein, the advertisement segments for at least a first manifest of the plurality of manifests are different than the advertisement segments for at least a second manifest of the plurality of manifests (Brown: [0004], where different distributors/operators may use information to insert different advertisement specifically targeted to those viewer/audiences associated with a particular distributor).
Regarding Claim 12, Rabinowitz discloses the computing device of claim 9. But Rabinowitz fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the off-band communication comprises a SCTE 224 communication.
Brown from a similar endeavor teaches wherein the off-band communication comprises a SCTE 224 communication (Brown: [0029], where SCTE 224, an out-of-band communication, can be used to communicate advertisement rules regarding how addressable advertisements should be selected and prioritized within a specific advertisement slot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rabinowitz in view of Brown such that the out-of-band communication of Rabinowitz (Rabinowitz: [0020]) could be via SCTE 224 as disclosed by Brown, (Brown: [0029]). One of the benefits of using out-of-band SCTE 224 messages is that they may carry potentially unlimited information to match audience and action pairs and greatly reduces the size of the SCTE 35 marker required with the video, (Brown: [0053]).
Regarding Claim 15, Rabinowitz discloses the computing device of claim 9. But Rabinowitz fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the set of computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause: selecting the advertisement segments, for each of the plurality of manifests, based on the off-band communication.
Brown from a similar endeavor teaches selecting the advertisement segments, for each of the plurality of manifests, based on the off-band communication (Brown: [0055], where because SCTE-224 information may be sent out-of-band and may be used differently for different distributors, a content provider may set up different ADSs for each distributor; [0070], where SCTE-224 messages include metadata, demographics of viewers located in a region and advertisement campaign information; [0057], where a content provider may provide rules via SCTE 224 messages specifying which advertisements to include).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rabinowitz in view of Brown such that the out-of-band communication of Rabinowitz (Rabinowitz: [0020]) could be via SCTE 224 as disclosed by Brown, (Brown: [0029]). One of the benefits of using out-of-band SCTE 224 messages is that they may carry potentially unlimited information to match audience and action pairs and greatly reduces the size of the SCTE 35 marker required with the video, (Brown: [0053]).
Regarding Claim 19, Rabinowitz discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16. But Rabinowitz fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the off-band communication comprises a SCTE 224 communication.
Brown from a similar endeavor teaches wherein the off-band communication comprises a SCTE 224 communication (Brown: [0029], where SCTE 224, an out-of-band communication, can be used to communicate advertisement rules regarding how addressable advertisements should be selected and prioritized within a specific advertisement slot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rabinowitz in view of Brown such that the out-of-band communication of Rabinowitz (Rabinowitz: [0020]) could be via SCTE 224 as disclosed by Brown, (Brown: [0029]). One of the benefits of using out-of-band SCTE 224 messages is that they may carry potentially unlimited information to match audience and action pairs and greatly reduces the size of the SCTE 35 marker required with the video, (Brown: [0053]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Waggoner et al., US Patent 12,003,564 B1 teach that one or more manifest files may be created for the media file that indicated a quality score and different manifest files may be created for different device types, (col. 2 ll. 21 – 53).
McGilvray et al., US Pub. 2021/0409796 A1 teach receiving switchover markers from different manifest files associated with different streaming content and generating a merged manifest file, ([0056]). Affiliate content distributors may generate respective manifest files of the first and second live broadcasting streams, ([0146]).
Naffis, US Pub. 2025/0132850 A1 teaches delivering streams to client devices which include markers, such as SCTE or cuetones, where advertisements can be added. Ad breaks can also be identified using discontinuity tags or detecting changes in the URL, using SSAI, ([0025]). These breaks are indicated in manifest files, (Fig. 2 and [0026]).
Booth et al., US Pub. 2023/0171449 A1 teach that video watermarking may be used to determine when replaceable content is play so that the system can optionally overlay that content with other content. By using the watermark and possibly some out of band metadata such as SCTE 224, a break signal can be inserted back into the stream, ([0035]).
Shanson et al., US Pub. 2025/0133243 A1 teach that metadata associated with secondary content can be transmitted to the video player out of band, ([0073]). A playlist manifest is generated indicating the positions of the ad-pods and returns the manifest to the player, ([0034]).
Cole et al., US Pub. 2018/0131986 A1 teach a non-linear video content scheduling and encoding system which creates a manifest. It includes taking the video asset and the metadata, i.e. linear broadcast fed recording schedule, filename, thumbnail images locations, broadcast feed capture recording information, and broadcast feed network and routing information and prepares for delivery to a third party, ([0042]).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cynthia M FOGG whose telephone number is (571)272-2741. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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.
/CYNTHIA M FOGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights