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 .
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12756898. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated in every aspect by the patented claims.
US Patent
12756898
Instant Application
19/447185
1. A system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to:
identify one or more event indicators in a live input stream manifest,
wherein the live input stream manifest corresponds to a live output stream;
generate an updated live input stream manifest based at least in part on the one or more event indicators by inserting, into the live input stream manifest, a plurality of media segment references indicated in a programming schedule on which the live output stream is based,
wherein the programming schedule indicates times at which a plurality of media segments,
corresponding to the plurality of media segment references, are to be streamed, and durations for which the plurality of the media segments are to be streamed; and
transmit the updated live input stream manifest to a content delivery network, along with an instruction for the content delivery network to stream the live output stream, based on the updated live input stream manifest, to a client device.
1. A system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to:
identify one or more event indicators in a live input stream manifest,
wherein the live input stream manifest corresponds to a live output stream; and
generate an updated live input stream manifest based at least in part on the one or more event indicators by inserting, into the live input stream manifest, a plurality of media segment references indicated in a programming schedule on which the live output stream is based,
wherein the programming schedule indicates times at which a plurality of media segments,
corresponding to the plurality of media segment references, are to be streamed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to claim 1 is being presented below. However, the Applicants should please note that the analysis for claims 13 and 20 are similar to that of claim 1 and therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 1 recites: A system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to:
(a) identify an event indicator associated with a live input stream manifest that corresponds to a live output stream;
(b) generate an updated live input stream manifest based at least in part on the event indicator by inserting, into the live input stream manifest, a plurality of media segment references indicated in a programming schedule associated with the live output stream; and
(c) initiate a presentation of a live output stream at a client device based at least in part on the updated live input stream manifest.
Limitation (a)-(b) are limitations that, as drafted, reasonably constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the human mind/with pen and paper by a human. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind (i.e., writing a list and writing additional data within the list on paper). These limitations, then, are a mental process that falls into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim recites the additional elements of (c), memory, and processors. The elements of memory and processors are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic elements performing generic computer functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Limitation (c) is a limitation that amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 is a system that analyzes data, generates data, and initiates a presentation based on the generated data. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Claims 3-4, 6-9, 11-12 and 15-19 recite additional elements that also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
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 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philpott et al. (WO2014/019063, hereinafter Philpott) in view of Ashbacher (US10194177, hereinafter Ashbacher) and O’Malley et al. (US20150271234, hereinafter O’Malley).
Regarding claims 1-2, 12-14 and 20, Philpott discloses a system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to:
identify an event indicator associated with a live input stream manifest that corresponds to a live output stream (see Philpott, at least at [0052]-[0054], [0058], [0070], [0077], and other related text);
generate an updated live input stream manifest based at least in part on the event indicator by inserting, into the live input stream manifest, a plurality of media segment references (see Philpott, at least at [0029]-[0030], [0052]-[0054], [0058], [0063]-[0064], [0077], and other related text); and
initiate a presentation of a live output stream at a client device based at least in part on the updated live input stream (see Philpott, at least at [0076], and other related text).
Philpott does not specifically generating an updated live input stream manifest based at least in part on the event indicator by inserting, into the live input stream manifest, a plurality of media segment references indicated in a programming schedule associated with the live output stream; and
initiating a presentation of a live output stream at a client device based at least in part on the updated live input stream manifest.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing media, Ashbacher discloses a system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors (see Ashbacher, at least at Figs. 1-2 and related text) configured to:
identify an event indicator associated with a live input stream manifest that corresponds to a live output stream (see Ashbacher, at least at col 2, lines 10-27, col 3, lines 40-50, col 4, lines 2-43, col 6, lines 11-64, and other related text);
generate an updated live input stream based at least in part on a plurality of media segments indicated in a programming schedule associated with the live output stream (the replacement content of Ashbacher may reasonably be content that is already scheduled to be output and therefore indicated in a programming schedule associated with the live output stream, see Ashbacher, at least at col 2, lines 10-27, col 3, lines 40-50, col 4, lines 2-43, col 6, lines 11-64, and other related text); and
initiate a presentation of a live output stream at a client device based at least in part on the updated live input stream manifest (see Ashbacher, at least at col 2, lines 10-27, col 3, lines 40-50, col 4, lines 2-43, col 6, lines 11-64, 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 Philpott to include the limitations as taught by Ashbacher for the advantage of more efficiently assembling and providing media to a user.
Philpott in view of Ashbacher does not specifically disclose generating an updated live input stream manifest by inserting, into the live input stream manifest, a plurality of media segment references; and
initiating a presentation of a live output stream at a client device based at least in part on the updated live input stream manifest.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing media, O’Malley discloses generating an updated live input stream manifest (see O’Malley, at least at [0014]-[0017], [0042]-[0043], [0054], [0065]-[0071], and other related text) by inserting, into the live input stream manifest, a plurality of media segment references (see O’Malley, at least at [0014]-[0017], [0042]-[0043], [0054], [0065]-[0071], and other related text); and
initiating a presentation of a live output stream at a client device based at least in part on the updated live input stream manifest (see O’Malley, at least at [0070], [0103], [0117, [0121], 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 Philpott in view of Ashbacher to include the limitations as taught by O’Malley for the advantage of more efficiently assembling and providing media to a user.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Philpott in view of Ashbacher and O’Malley discloses wherein the event indicator corresponds to one of a non-programming content indicator, a programming content indicator, or an overlay indicator (the indicator corresponds to an indication of content insertion, see Philpott, at least at [0029]-[0030], and other related text, and see Ashbacher, at least at col 4, line 28-50, and other related text).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Philpott in view of Ashbacher and O’Malley discloses wherein the event indicator comprises a discontinuity tag (see Philpott, at least at [0033]-[0035], and other related text, and see Ashbacher, at least at col 6, lines 11-64, and other related text).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Philpott in view of Ashbacher and O’Malley discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: initiate a transition of playback based on the event indicator (see Philpott, at least at [0057]-[0061], and other related text), and see Ashbacher, at least at col 6, lines 11-64, and other related text).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Philpott in view of Ashbacher and O’Malley discloses wherein the live input stream manifest comprises at least first media segment references from a first source, and the updated live input stream manifest comprises at least second media segment references from a second source (see Philpott, at least at [0058]-[0063], and see Ashbacher, at least at Figs. 2-3, and other related text).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Philpott in view of Ashbacher and O’Malley discloses wherein the first source comprises a first live input stream and the second source comprises a second live input stream see Ashbacher, at least at col 5, lines 1-25, Figs. 2-3, and other related text).
Regarding claim 8, Philpott in view of Ashbacher and O’Malley discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: generate a switching schedule, wherein the switching schedule indicates one or more transition times (see Ashbacher, at least at col 5, lines 1-65, col 6, line 56 – col 7, line 35, and other related text).
Regarding claim 9, Philpott in view of Ashbacher and O’Malley discloses wherein the switching schedule is based on at least one of: (a) the programming schedule, (b) a defined first transition window and a program end message, or (c) a defined second transition window and a program start message (see Ashbacher, at least at col 5, lines 1-65, col 6, line 56 – col 7, line 35, and other related text).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philpott (previously cited) in view of Ashbacher (previously cited) and O’Malley (previously cited), as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of Bagga et al. (US20160142783, hereinafter Bagga).
Regarding claims 10, Philpott in view of Ashbacher and O’Malley discloses responsive to receiving an indication of a selection (see Philpott, at least at [0003], [0017], [0057], see Ashbacher, at least at col 2, lines 10-27, col 3, lines 40-50, col 4, lines 2-43, col 6, lines 11-64, and other related text, and see O’Malley, at least at [0102]-[0103], [0117], and other related text):
providing the live input stream manifest to the client device (see Philpott, at least at [0003], [0017], [0057], see Ashbacher, at least at col 2, lines 10-27, col 3, lines 40-50, col 4, lines 2-43, col 6, lines 11-64, and other related text, and see O’Malley, at least at [0014]-[0017], [0042]-[0043], [0054], [0065]-[0071], [0102]-[0103], [0117], and other related text), but does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
initiate a presentation of a plurality of stream representations respectively corresponding to a plurality of live output streams that comprise the live output stream;
receive an indication of a selection of a representation corresponding to the live output stream; and
responsive to receiving the indication of the selection:
store the indication of the selection in a user preferences repository.
In an analogous art relating to a system for presenting content and information, Bagga discloses one or more processors (see Bagga, at least at [0032], and other related text) further configured to:
initiate a presentation of a plurality of stream representations respectively corresponding to a plurality of output streams that comprise an output stream (see Bagga, at least at [0020], [0061], [0124], Figs. 5-6, and other related text);
receive an indication of a selection of a representation corresponding to the output stream (see Bagga, at least at [0034], and other related text); and
responsive to receiving the indication of the selection:
store the indication of the selection in a user preferences repository (see Bagga, at least at [0018], [0022]-[0023], [0034], 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 Philpott in view Ashbacher and O’Malley to include the limitations as taught by Bagga for the advantage of more efficiently providing information to a user.
Regarding claim 11, Philpott in view Ashbacher, O’Malley and Bagga discloses wherein the plurality of stream representations is based at least in part on a geographical location of the client device, one or more regional contents rights, one or more media content rights, one or more regional consumer preferences, one or more individual consumer preferences, one or more individual consumer service subscription level data, or an availability of the plurality of live output streams (see Bagga, at least at [0020], [0034], [0061], [0124], Figs. 5-6, and other related text).
Conclusion
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