Patent
`
`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
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket