`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`Remarks
`
`A reply responsive to the final Office action dated January 27, 2015 and a Request for
`
`Continued Examination was filed on July 27, 2015. The instant reply further addresses the
`
`rejections included in the final Office action dated January 27, 2015.
`
`Reconsideration of this application is respectfully requested. Upon entry of the
`
`foregoing reply, claims 6—35 and 41—1 14 are pending in the application, with claims 6, 41, 79,
`
`and 93 being the independent claims.
`
`Amendments have been made to the claims. Section 112 support for the amendments
`
`can be found throughout the application as filed, including paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0055],
`
`[0094], [0139], [0142], [0144], [0150], [0187], and [0345].
`
`Rejection under 35 US. C. § 102
`
`Claims 6, 17-19, 22, 57, 24-27, 41, 52-54, 59-62, 79-87, 88, and 93-102
`
`Claims 6, 17-19, 22, 57, 24-27, 41, 52-54, 59-62, 79-87, 88, and 93-102 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.
`
`Without acquiescing to the propriety of the rejection, Applicants amend claim 6 to
`
`clarify distinguishing features not believed to be disclosed, taught, or 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
`
`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 disclose, teach, or suggest “identify a plurality of segments of the
`
`requested media.” (Emphasis Supplied). Eyal teaches “a user terminal to playback streaming
`
`media programming determined by play—lists.” (Eyal, 27:2—3). The “play—list” of Eyal
`
`includes multiple different media, but does not refer to a plurality of segments of the
`
`508977693
`
`21
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`requested media. Eyal further notes that “[a] database is accessed that stores a plurality of
`
`links, where each link opening a corresponding media web resource. A first link is selected
`
`from the database, the first link being located on a first network site. Next, a second link is
`
`selected from the database, the second link being located in a second network site. The
`
`second network site is external to the first network site. Then, the selected links are signaled
`
`to a media playback component on the terminal to sequentially access the media web
`
`resources associated with the selected links. The media playback component on the terminal
`
`is automatically signaled to load each of the media web resource accessed from the selected
`
`links so as to playback a media corresponding to each media web resource.” (Eyal, 4:29—42).
`
`Thus, Eyal does not disclose, teach, or suggest a plurality of segments of the requested media,
`
`but sequentially accessing different media.
`
`Furthermore, Eyal does not disclose, teach, or suggest “for each one of the plurality of
`
`identified segments, (i) determining, by the management system, a plurality of resources
`
`available to facilitate streaming the segment to the communication device and (ii)
`
`transmitting, from the management system to the communication deVice, an indication of the
`
`segment and information instructing the communication device how to communicate with
`
`each of the plurality of resources to cause the segment to be streamed to the
`
`communication device.” (Emphasis Supplied). Eyal only describes identifying two
`
`addresses from the database and automatically playing back the media network resources of
`
`each of the signaled addresses. Eyal demonstrates that each discrete address refers to a
`
`separate media. Eyal notes that “the media play—back component continuously plays back
`
`media by (i) accessing a first site on the network and playing back media from the first site,
`
`(ii) then automatically accessing a second site and playing back media from the second site.
`
`The media sites may be provided by play—lists which that are made accessible to the media
`
`playback component.” (Eyal, 27:47—51). This is shown in Figure ll of Eyal that includes
`
`step 930 including “Load Playlist(s) for Current Playlist Name” and step 940 that includes
`
`“Play Next Media in Loaded Playlist(s) (Using Internet Playback Application).” (Emphasis
`
`Supplied, Eyal, Figure ll). Claim 6 distinguishes over Eyal because Eyal does not disclose
`
`determining by the management system a plurality of resources available to facilitate
`
`streaming the segment to the communication deVice and transmitting, from the management
`
`508977693
`
`22
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`system to the communication device, an indication of the segment and information instructing
`
`the communication device how to communicate with each of the plurality of resources to
`
`cause the segment to be streamed to the communication device. Eyal does not teach at least
`
`these distinguishing features.
`
`Therefore, Applicants respectfully submit that independent claim 1 distinguishes over
`
`Eyal. Reconsideration of claim 6 and Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`Independent claim 41 recites “identify a plurality of segments of the requested media”
`
`and “for each one of the plurality of identified segments, (i) determine a plurality of resources,
`
`other than the management system, available to facilitate streaming the segment and (ii)
`
`transmit to the communication device an indication of the segment and information
`
`instructing the communication device how to communicate with each of the plurality of
`
`resources to cause the segment to be streamed to the communication device.” Thus,
`
`independent claim 41 recites similarly to independent claim 6 and distinguishes over Eyal for
`
`at least the reasons above and further in view of its respective features.
`
`Independent claim 79 recites “identifying a plurality of segments of the requested
`
`media” and “for each one of the plurality of identified segments, (i) determining, by the
`
`management system, a plurality of resources other than the management system available to
`
`facilitate streaming the segment to the communication device and (ii) transmitting, from the
`
`management system to the communication device, an indication of the segment and
`
`information instructing the communication device how to communicate with each of the
`
`plurality of resources to cause the segment to be streamed to the communication device.”
`
`Thus, independent claim 79 recites similarly to independent claim 6 and distinguishes over
`
`Eyal for at least the reasons above and further in view of its respective features.
`
`Independent claim 93 recites “identify a plurality of segments of the requested media”
`
`and “for each one of the plurality of identified segments, (i) determine a plurality of resources
`
`other than the management system available to facilitate streaming the segment to the
`
`communication device and (ii) transmit to the communication device an indication of the
`
`segment and information instructing the communication device how to communicate With
`
`each of the plurality of resources to cause the segment to be streamed to the communication
`
`device.” Thus, independent claim 93 recites similarly to independent claim 6 and
`
`508977693
`
`23
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`distinguishes over Eyal for at least the reasons above and further in view of its respective
`
`features.
`
`The dependent claims depend upon the independent claims 6, 41, 79, and 93 and
`
`distinguish over Eyal for at least the reasons above and further in view of their respective
`
`features. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully submit that claims 6, 17—19, 22, 57, 24—27, 41,
`
`52-54, 59-62, 79—87, 88, and 93—102 distinguish over Eyal for at least the reasons provided
`
`above. Reconsideration of the claims and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`Rejections under 35 US. C. § 103
`
`Claims 7-14: 16: 42-49: and 51
`
`Claims 7—14, 16, 42—49, and 51 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, and
`
`51 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.
`
`Additionally, dependent claim 9 independently distinguishes over Eyal and Herz.
`
`Claim 9 recites “selecting the other media comprises selecting at least one of an advertisement
`
`and a selected one of a plurality of media clips.” Regarding claim 9, the Office acknowledges
`
`that Eyal does not teach claim 9. However, the Office refers to column 47, line 21 to column
`
`48, line 22 of Herz. Nothing in this entire column of Herz in combination with Eyal
`
`discloses, teaches, or suggests “selecting the other media comprises selecting at least one of
`
`an advertisement and a selected one of a plurality of media clips.” Rather, Herz describes
`
`“[t]he agreement matrix can be also be used to select infomercials or other advertisements that
`
`508977693
`
`24
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`the customer is most likely to watch and respond to by making purchases.” (Herz, 47:63—66).
`
`It is unclear what, if anything, in Herz allegedly teaches the claimed features. Applicants
`
`submit that the Office has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for at least
`
`these reasons. Claim 45 recites similarly to claim 9 and also independently distinguishes over
`
`Eyal and Herz. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request reconsideration of claims 7— 14,
`
`16, 42—49, and 51 and withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`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 20a 21a 55a and 56
`
`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 ,
`
`508977693
`
`25
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`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. 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.
`
`508977693
`
`26
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`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 Examiner’s Office action dated
`
`January 27, 2015.
`
`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
`
`508977693
`
`27
`
`