DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is in response to application 19/217,444 filed 5/23/2025.
Claims 1-23 are presented for examination.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner contacted Applicant and left a voice mail requesting submission of a terminal disclaimer to facilitate compact prosecution. No response has been received.
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.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 of instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,057,610 and claims 2, 15, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,323,759 in view of the corresponding dependent claims identified in the table below. The instant and patented claims are directed to the same inventive concept of identifying an advertisement placement opportunity within a content stream and allocating bandwidth and delivering content based on available bandwidth and/or device capabilities to provide an appropriate version of the content to receiving devices. The instant claims are not patentably distinct from the patented claims because the corresponding claims recite this same inventive concept, and any differences constitute only obvious variations that do not render the instant claims patentably distinct.
Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 17 are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 14, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,057,610 and claims 2, 15, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,323,759 for reasons set forth in the table below.
Instant Application 19/217,444
Parent Pat 10,057,610
Not Patentably Distinct
Independent Claims 1, 9, 17:
receiving, by a user device of a plurality of user devices, a linear content stream;
detecting, by the user device, an advertisement placement opportunity in the linear content stream; and
outputting, by the user device, an advertisement having video resolution based on resource information associated with the linear content stream, wherein the resource information facilitates output by each user device of the plurality of user devices.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2, 10, 18
Claims 3, 11
Claims 4, 12, 19
Claims 5, 13, 20
Claims 6, 14, 21
Claims 7, 15, 22
Claims 8, 16, 23
Independent Claims 1, 14, 27:
detect a content opportunity in a transport stream;
determine a plurality of content elements addressed for the content opportunity;
allocate bandwidth for a highest profile available version of each of the plurality of content elements to a highest profile available content stream responsive to the highest profile available content stream having sufficient resources; and
allocate bandwidth for a lower profile version of each of the plurality of content elements remaining after allocation of the bandwidth for the highest profile available version of each of the plurality of content elements to a lower profile content stream,
wherein the computer-readable storage medium further contains programming instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to prioritize the plurality of content elements based on a segment demographic.
Dependent Claims:
Claim 20
Claim 21
Claim 4
Claim 17
Claim 25
Claim 16
Claim 17
Analysis:
Both began with receiving/processing a streaming content source to identify a point for subsequent content delivery. The differences in terminology (linear content stream vs, transport stream) do not patentably distinguish the claims.
Both identify an opportunity within the content stream and determine content to be delivered at that opportunity. Selecting content elements for a detected content opportunity encompasses advertisement placement.
Both determine and output different versions of content based on available resources and profile characteristics. Using available bandwidth/resources to select higher or lower profile versions corresponding to selecting an appropriate advertisement rendition for output, and the recited differences do not patentably distinguish the claims.
Analysis:
Both recite selecting among versions based on bitrate/bandwidth.
Both recite different video resolutions for different versions/devices.
Both are directed to television advertising content.
Both concern television advertising content on different platforms/content.
Both involve different delivery/network streams.
Both concern television programming/transport stream delivery.
Both are directed to addressed /television advertising content.
Instant Application 19/217,444
Parent Pat 11,323,759
Not Patentably Distinct
Independent Claims 1, 9, 17:
receiving, by a user device of a plurality of user devices, a linear content stream;
detecting, by the user device, an advertisement placement opportunity in the linear content stream; and
outputting, by the user device, an advertisement having video resolution based on resource information associated with the linear content stream, wherein the resource information facilitates output by each user device of the plurality of user devices.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2, 10, 18
Claims 3, 11
Claims 8, 16, 23
Independent Claims 2, 15, 21:
detecting, in a transport stream, a content opportunity indicating a time for one or more receiving devices to switch from the transport stream to a high-profile content stream or a low-profile content stream to receive one or more content elements;
detecting, in a transport stream, a content opportunity indicating a time for one or more receiving devices to switch from the transport stream to a high-profile content stream or a low-profile content stream to receive one or more content elements;
allocating, based at least in part on the detecting the content opportunity, first bandwidth to the high-profile content stream for insertion, in the high-profile content stream, of a high-profile version of at least one content element of the one or more content elements until a bandwidth limitation of the high-profile content stream is met; and
allocating, based on the bandwidth limitation of the high-profile content stream being met,
second bandwidth to the low-profile content stream for insertion, in the low-profile content stream,
of a low-profile version of the one or more content elements remaining after the
allocating the first bandwidth to the high-profile content stream.
Dependent Claims:
Claim 24
Claim 17, 23
Claim 5
Analysis:
Both process a streaming content source at a user/receiving device to identify a point delivering alternate content. The recited transport stream versus linear content stream does not patentable distinguish the claims.
Both detect an opportunity within the stream for insertion or delivery of alternate content. Detecting a content opportunity encompasses detecting an advertisement placement opportunity under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Both determine which version of content is delivered based on available bandwidth/resources by selecting among multiple profile versions. The differences in describing advertisement video resolution versus high-/low-profile content versions do not patentably distinguish the claimed subject matter.
Analysis:
Both narrow the allocation based on resource/device capability information
Both concern outputting different resolutions (or first/second resolutions) for different versions/content. Claim 17 expressly recites first and second resolutions. Claim 23 (CRM) is the same subject matter.
Both are directed to advertising content. Instant claim requires an addressed advertisement; Parent claim 5 narrows the content elements to advertising content.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art of record, including that considered during examination of the related parent applications, fail to teach or suggest the allowable subject matter previously identified in connection with U.S. Patent Nos. 10,057,610 and 11,323,759. In particular, the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest "outputting, by the user device, an advertisement having video resolution based on resource information associated with the linear content stream, wherein the resource information facilitates output by each user device of the plurality of user devices.", as recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 17.
A current search identified Ma et al. (US 2014/0150019) as the closest prior art. Ma teaches detecting advertisement insertion opportunities in an HTTP adaptive streaming environment, segmented media delivery, and targeted advertisement insertion [e.g., para.0034]. However, Ma fails to teach or suggest outputting, by each user device of a plurality of user devices, an advertisement having a video resolution based on resources information associated with the linear content stream, wherein the resource information facilitates output by each user device of the plurality of user devices. The foregoing deficiency is consistent with the basis for allowance previously identified during examination of the related parent applications.
Accordingly, claims 1-23 appear to be allowable over prior art identified in the patented allowance as well as the prior art presently of record. However, claims 1-23 remain subject to the nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is overcome, for example by the filing of an appropriate terminal disclaimer, the claims would be in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manzari et al., (US 9,043,484) – Discloses media content being prepared to support dynamically generated client-side streaming playlists (col.2 lines 24-25). Discloses providing convenient insertion points for referencing dynamic content such as advertising (col.4 lines 40-42) and discloses discontinuity tags that indicate the positions where the advertisement content is to be inserted (col.7 lines 7-9). Manzari dynamically inserts ads into playlists rather than allocating bandwidth between high- and low-profile versions of content elements.
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
Prosecution Insights