`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`Remarks
`
`Reconsideration of this application is respectfully requested. Upon entry of the
`
`foregoing reply, claims 6—35 and 41—114 are pending in the application, with claims 6, 41, 79,
`
`and 93 being the independent claims.
`
`Amendments have been made to the claims. Support for the amendments can be
`
`found throughout the application as filed, including paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0051]-[0065],
`
`[0094], [0139], [0142], [0144], [0150], [0187], and [0345].
`
`Double Patenting Rejection
`
`Claims 6—35 and 41—128 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non—statutory
`
`double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1—27 and 35—47 of copending Application
`
`No. 13/843,412. Applicant requests that the Examiner hold this rejection in abeyance until
`
`the claims in the instant application have been found allowable, at which time Applicant will
`
`file an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
`
`Rejection under 35 US. C. § 102
`
`Claims 6, 17-19, 22, 57, 24-27, 41, 52-55, 59-62, 79-88, 93-102, 107-116, and 122-
`
`Q
`
`Claims 6, 17-19, 22, 57, 24-27, 41, 52-55, 59-62, 79-88, 93-102, 107-116, and 122-
`
`124 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being allegedly anticipated by Eyal (U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,389,467). Applicants respectfully traverse the rejection.
`
`In the Office action, the Examiner takes the position that the claimed “media,” when
`
`interpreted in light of Applicant’s specification, covers a play—list, and therefore, interprets the
`
`playlist in Eyal as the claimed “media” (see page 2 of the Office action). Applicant
`
`respectfully disagrees with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed “media” and
`
`characterization of the play—list disclosed by Eyal.
`
`Applicant submits that both Applicant’s specification and claims make it clear that the
`
`term “media” refers to media content, e.g., audio, video, or images (see, e.g., paragraphs
`
`[0040], [0041], and [0042] of Applicant’s specification). The claims expressly state “media
`
`content streamed to the communication device.” Indeed, Applicant’s specification and claims
`
`556755681
`
`20
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`repeatedly recite that the media is streamed, further evidencing that “media” refers to media
`
`content (play—lists are not streamed). As such, the claimed “media” cannot properly be
`
`construed to mean the play—list of Eyal, Which merely includes references to media content
`
`(see, e.g., col. 9, lns. 16—19 of Eyal, Which states that “[t]he play—lists contain media links for
`
`the media playback application.”). The playlist itself is not streamed to a communication
`
`device. To further emphasis this point, Applicant has amended the claims to recite “media
`
`content.”
`
`In the Office action, the Examiner suggested that, in order to overcome the instant
`
`rejection, Applicant (a) specifically define “media” and “segments” in the claims, (b) specify
`
`how the invention determines the availability of resources, and (c) specify how the
`
`instructions specify how the communications device communications with the resources.
`
`Applicant appreciates the Examiner’s suggestions.
`
`Regarding point (a), as explained above, Applicant has amended the claims to recite
`
`“media content” to further emphasize that “media” refers to media content. Applicant has
`
`also amended the claims to recite “media content segments” to further emphasize that
`
`“segments” refers to portions of the media content.
`
`Regarding points (b) and (c), Applicant’s have amended each of the independent
`
`claims to recite that the requested media content comprises “a plurality of media content
`
`segments,” and that for each one of the plurality of media content segments, a plurality of
`
`resources other than the management system available to facilitate streaming the media
`
`content segment to the communication device are determined and an indication of the media
`
`content segment and information instructing the communication device how to communicate
`
`with each of the plurality of resources are transmitted to cause the media content segment to
`
`be streamed to the communication device “in accordance with at least one rule associated
`
`with the requested media content to control how the plurality of media content segments are
`
`to be streamed to the communication device, a capability of the communication device, and
`
`an attribute of the user.” Applicant submits that these features are neither taught nor
`
`suggested by Eyal.
`
`Eyal discusses a method for playing back media from a network including receiving a
`
`search criteria from a network enabled device and accessing a database comprising a plurality
`
`55675568.1
`
`21
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`of network addresses, each address associated with one or more classes of information and
`
`accessing a media network resource. Eyal further describes selecting at least one address in
`
`the database using the search criteria and signaling the selected address to the network
`
`enabled device.
`
`(Eyal, 1:50—62). Examples of search criterias include titles, artist names, data
`
`types, user preferential rating, quality, and duration. The network server selects at least one
`
`address from the database based on the search criteria.
`
`(Eyal, 11:48—54).
`
`Eyal fails to teach or suggest requested that requested media content comprises “a
`
`plurality of media content segments” and that for each one of the plurality of media content
`
`segments, a plurality of resources other than the management system available to facilitate
`
`streaming the media content segment to the communication device are determined and an
`
`indication of the media content segment and information instructing the communication
`
`device how to communicate with each of the plurality of resources are transmitted to cause
`
`the media content segment to be streamed to the communication device “in accordance with
`
`at least one rule associated with the requested media content to control how the plurality of
`
`media content segments are to be streamed to the communication device, a capability of the
`
`communication device, and an attribute of the user.” Indeed, Eyal is silent as to the idea of
`
`streaming media content referenced in a play—list in accordance with a the claimed rule,
`
`capability, and attribute.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant submits that independent claims 6, 41, 79, and 93 are
`
`patentable over Eyal. Applicant further submits that claims 17—19, 22, 57, 24—27, 52—55, 59—
`
`62, 80—88, 94—102, 107—1 16, and 122—124, which depend from claims 79 and 93, are also
`
`patentable over Eyal for at least the reasons above in regards to claims 79 and 93, and further
`
`in view of their respective features. Reconsideration of the claims and withdrawal of the
`
`rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`55675568.1
`
`22
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`Rejections under 35 US. C. § 103
`
`Claims 7-14, 16, 42-49, 51, 118-121, and 125-128
`
`Claims 7—14, 16, 42—49, 51, 118—121, and 125—128 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) as being allegedly unpatentable over Eyal in view of Herz (U.S. Patent No. 5,758,257).
`
`Applicants respectfully traverse the rejection.
`
`Regarding the independent claims, Herz does not solve the deficiencies of Eyal,
`
`described above. Herz discusses a system and method for determining from an object profile
`
`data of customers which data or video programming is most desired by each customer so that
`
`customers may receive data or video programming customized to their objective preferences.
`
`(Herz, 1:10—17). Herz further describes a customer profile system including content profiles
`
`and customer preferences. (Herz, 9:30—35). Thus, Applicants respectfully submit that the
`
`independent claims distinguish over Eyal and Herz. Dependent claims 7—14, 16, 42—49, 51,
`
`118—121, and 125—128 depend upon the independent claims and distinguish over the applied
`
`references for at least the reasons above and further in view of their respective features.
`
`Claims 15 and 50
`
`Claims 15 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being allegedly
`
`unpatentable over Eyal in view of Angles (U.S. Patent No. 5,933,811). Applicants
`
`respectfully traverse the rejection.
`
`Regarding the independent claims, Angles does not solve the deficiencies of Eyal,
`
`described above. Angles discusses allowing an advertisement provider to monitor the number
`
`of advertisements viewed by consumers associated with a particular content provider so that
`
`content providers can receive advertising revenue based on the number of consumers who
`
`access their websites. (Angles, 4:17—26). Thus, Applicants respectfully submit that the
`
`independent claims distinguish over Eyal and Angles. Dependent claims 15 and 50 depend
`
`upon the independent claims and distinguish over the applied references for at least the
`
`reasons above and further in view of their respective features.
`
`Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request reconsideration of claims 15 and 50 and
`
`withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`Claims 20, 21, 55, and 56
`
`55675568.1
`
`23
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`Claims 20, 21, 55, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being allegedly
`
`unpatentable over Eyal in view of Farber (U.S. Patent No. 6,654,807). Applicants
`
`respectfully traverse the rejection.
`
`Regarding the independent claims, Farber does not solve the deficiencies of Eyal,
`
`described above. Farber discusses a mechanism at a server that maintains and keeps track of a
`
`number of partially replicated servers or repeaters. Each repeater replicates some or all of the
`
`information available on the server. (Farber, 4:18—26). Thus, Applicants respectfully submit
`
`that the independent claims distinguish over Eyal and Farber. Dependent claims 20, 21, 55,
`
`and 56 depend upon the independent claims and distinguish over the applied references for at
`
`least the reasons above and further in view of their respective features.
`
`Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request reconsideration of claims 20, 21, 55, and
`
`56 and withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`Claims 23: 28-35= 58= 63-78= 89-92= and 103-106
`
`Claims 23, 28—35, 58, 63—78, 89—92, and 103—106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) as being allegedly unpatentable over Eyal in view of Wiser (U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,385,596). Applicants respectfully traverse the rejection.
`
`Regarding the independent claims, Wiser does not solve the deficiencies of Eyal,
`
`described above. Wiser discloses a single delivery server 118 streams a preview of audio data
`
`for an audio file that is requested by a media player 116. See, for example, Figure 3 and col.
`
`8, lines 27—41 identifying a single delivery server address in a media voucher sent to the
`
`media player. While other delivery servers may exist, they do not stream the preview of the
`
`audio file for the particular request. Moreover, when an audio file is purchased, the purchased
`
`audio file is downloaded, not streamed. Wiser also does not disclose determining, by the
`
`management system, a plurality of resources available to facilitate streaming the segment as
`
`claimed. Again, as depicted in Figure 3 and col. 8, lines 27—41, a single media ID is
`
`transmitted in the media voucher. Wiser also does not disclose that requested media content
`
`comprises “a plurality of media content segments” and that for each one of the plurality of
`
`media content segments, a plurality of resources other than the management system available
`
`to facilitate streaming the media content segment to the communication device are determined
`
`and an indication of the media content segment and information instructing the
`
`556755681
`
`24
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`communication device how to communicate with each of the plurality of resources are
`
`transmitted to cause the media content segment to be streamed to the communication device
`
`“in accordance with at least one rule associated with the requested media content to control
`
`how the plurality of media content segments are to be streamed to the communication device,
`
`a capability of the communication device, and an attribute of the user.”
`
`As a result, Applicants respectfully submit that the independent claims distinguish
`
`over Eyal and Wiser. Dependent claims 23, 28—35, 58, 63—78, 89—92, and 103—106 depend
`
`upon the independent claims and distinguish over the applied references for at least the
`
`reasons above and further in view of their respective features.
`
`Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request reconsideration of claims 23, 28—35, 58,
`
`63-78, 89—92, and 103—106 and withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The dependent claims include all of the limitations of their respective base claim and,
`
`therefore, are patentable for at least the reasons the respective base claim is patentable.
`
`All reasons for patentability of the independent and dependent claims have not
`
`necessarily been discussed herein. No implication or construction should be made therefore.
`
`Applicant has no further remarks with regard to any references cited by the Examiner
`
`and made of record, whether or not acted upon by the Examiner in the action’s rejections,
`
`even if specifically identified in the action or any other paper or written or verbal
`
`communication. No implication or construction should be drawn about any review of the
`
`same by Applicant or Applicant’s attorney.
`
`Based on the foregoing, it is submitted that the Applicant’s invention as defined by the
`
`claims is patentable over the references of record. Issuance of a Notice of Allowance is
`
`solicited.
`
`Applicant’s attorney welcomes the opportunity to discuss the case with the Examiner
`
`in the event that there are any questions or comments regarding the response or the
`
`application.
`
`This is intended to be a complete response to the Office action dated July 5, 2016.
`
`55675568.1
`
`25
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any fees that may be required or
`
`credit any overpayment to Deposit Account 50—1662, referencing the docket number above.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`POLSINELLI PC
`
`/James M. Sti ek/
`
`James M. Stipek, Reg. No. 39,388
`900 W. 48‘h Place, Suite 900
`Kansas City, MO 64112
`Tel: (816) 360-4191
`
`Fax: (816) 753-1536
`
`Attorney for Applicants
`
`556755681
`
`26
`
`