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—132 are pending in the application, with claims 6, 41, 79,
`
`and 93 being the independent claims.
`
`Rejections under 35 US. C. § 112
`
`In the Office action, the Examiner rejected claims 6—35 and 41—132 under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre—AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
`
`description requirement. Applicants respectfully traverse the Examiner’s rejections.
`
`In rejecting claims 6—35 and 41—132 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre—
`
`AIA), first paragraph, the Examiner takes the position that the specification as originally filed
`
`does not provide support for the claim language “error in the streaming of the media content
`
`segment.” While Applicant believes that the specification does provide support for this
`
`language, in order to advance prosecution of the instant application, Applicants have amended
`
`each of independent claims to 6, 41, 79, and 93 to more closely track the language in
`
`Applicant’s specification relating to the embodiments disclosed, for example, at paragraphs
`
`[0164]—[0167]. In particular, paragraph [0164] states, “While the MMS 112 is streaming the
`
`presentation to the viewer 118, an error occurs, and the MMS is not able to continue
`
`streaming the presentation to the viewer” (emphasis added). Claims 6, 41, 79, and 93 have
`
`been amended to similarly recite, “upon an occurrence of an error while the media content
`
`segment is streamedfrom the first one of the plurality of resources to the communication
`
`device” (emphasis added).
`
`In rejecting claims 6—35 and 41—132 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre—
`
`AIA), first paragraph, the Examiner also takes the position that the specification as originally
`
`filed does not provide support for the claim language “causing the media content segment to
`
`be streamed by a second one of the plurality of resources, different from the first one of the
`
`plurality of resources, to the communication device in accordance with the 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, the capability of the
`
`communication device, and the attribute of the user” (emphasis added). Again, Applicant
`
`654570501
`
`22
`
`

`

`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`believes that the specification does provide support for this language. But, in order to
`
`advance prosecution of the instant application, Applicants have amended each of independent
`
`claims to 6, 41, 79, and 93 to remove the phrase, “in accordance with the 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, the capability of the
`
`communication device, and the attribute of the user.”
`
`In view of the foregoing, Applicants respectfully request that the Examiner withdraw
`
`the rejection of claims 6—35 and 41—132 under 35 U.S.C. § ll2(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre—
`
`AIA), first paragraph.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S. C. § 103
`
`
`Claims 6 17-19 22 24-27 41 52-55 59-62 79-88 93-102 107-116 122-124 and
`
`
`129-132.
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 6, 17—19, 22, 24—27, 41, 52—55, 59-62, 79—88, 93—102,
`
`107—1 16, 122—124, and 129—132 under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,389,467 (Eyal) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2002/0007418 (Hedge) and U.S. Patent No. 5,987,621 (Duso et al.). Applicants respectfully
`
`traverse the Examiner’s rejection as follows.
`
`Applicants have amended claim 6 to recite “the plurality of media content segments
`
`being portions of one media content file made available by a media owner for streaming,
`
`wherein the media content file is associated with a title assigned by the media owner,” and
`
`that, for each one of the plurality of media content segments, the management system
`
`determines a plurality of resources available to obtain the media content segment from one or
`
`more media storage devices and facilitate streaming the media content segment to the
`
`communication device. Independent claims 41, 79, and 93 have been similarly amended.
`
`Support for these amendments may be found throughout the application as originally filed,
`
`including paragraphs 40, 55, 57, 58, 59—63, 77, 78, 139—141, 252, 280, 293, and 346.
`
`In the Office action, the Examiner appears to equate a “media content segment” of
`
`claims 6, 41, 79, and 93 to a media file associated with a URL of Eyal. However, even if the
`
`Examiner’s analogy were proper (Applicants do not believe that it is), Eyal merely discloses
`
`654570501
`
`23
`
`

`

`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`the URLs correspond to search results and are for various media files stored at various sites
`
`on the Internet by various sources/entities (see, e.g., column 8, line 45 through column 9, line
`
`55 and column 11, line 59 through column 12, line 31). Table 4 and column 19, line 30—
`
`column 20, line 14 show URLs for different media types, different genres, different
`
`categories, different web resource identities, and different play lists. A search request may
`
`include criteria to select URLs from the table. Eyal fails to teach or suggest “the plurality of
`
`media content segments being portions of one media content file made available by a media
`
`owner for streaming, wherein the media content file is associated with a title assigned by the
`
`media owner” as claimed. This deficiency of Eyal is also not cured by Hedge or Duso et al.
`
`as neither of these makes any mention of “the plurality of media content segments being
`
`portions of one media content file made available by a media owner for streaming, wherein
`
`the media content file is associated with a title assigned by the media owner.” For at least
`
`these reasons, Applicants request that the rejection of claims 6, 17—19, 22, 24—27, 41, 52—55,
`
`58, 59—62, 79-88, 93—102, 107—116, 122—124, and 129—132 be withdrawn.
`
`
`Claims 7-14 16 42-49 51 118-121 and 125-128.
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 7—14, 16, 42—49, 51, 118—121, and 125—128 under pre—
`
`AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eyal in view of Hedge and Duso et al. in
`
`further view of U.S. Patent No. 5,758,257 (Herz et al.). Applicants submit that Herz et al.
`
`fails to cure the deficiencies of Eyal, Hedge, and Duso et al. as set forth above in regards to
`
`claims 6, 41, 79, and 93. Accordingly, Applicants request that the rejection of claims 7—14,
`
`16,42-49, 51, 118-121, and 125-128 be withdrawn.
`
`Claims 15 and 50.
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 50 under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Eyal in view of Hedge and Duso et al. in further view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,933,811 (Angles et al.). Applicants submit that Angles et al. fail to cure the deficiencies of
`
`Eyal, Hedge, and Duso et al. as set forth above in regards to claims 6, 41, 79, and 93.
`
`Accordingly, Applicants request that the rejection of claims 15 and 50 be withdrawn.
`
`654570501
`
`24
`
`

`

`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`
`Claims 20 21 55 and 56.
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 20, 21, 55, and 56 under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Eyal in view of Hedge and Duso et al. in further view of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,654,807 (Farber et al.). Applicants submit that Farber et al. fails to cure the deficiencies
`
`of Eyal, Hedge, and Duso et al. as set forth above in regards to claims 6, 41, 79, and 93.
`
`Accordingly, Applicants request that the rejection of claims 20, 21, 55, and 56 be withdrawn.
`
`
`Claims 23 28—35 58 63—78 89—92 and 103—106.
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 23, 28—35, 58, 63—78, 89—92, and 103—106 under pre—
`
`AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eyal in view of Hedge and Duso et al. in
`
`further view of U.S. Patent No. 6,385,596 (Wiser et al.). Applicants submit that Wiser et al.
`
`fails to cure the deficiencies of Eyal, Hedge, and Duso et al. as set forth above in regards to
`
`claims 6, 41, 79, and 93. Accordingly, Applicants request that the rejection of claims 23, 28—
`
`35, 58, 63—78, 89—92, and 103-106 be withdrawn.
`
`Conclusion
`
`All reasons for patentability of the independent and dependent claims have not
`
`necessarily been discussed herein. No implication or construction should be made therefore.
`
`This is intended to be a complete response to the Office action dated April 2, 2018.
`
`Applicants have 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 Applicants or Applicants’ attorney.
`
`Applicants’ 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.
`
`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,
`
`654570501
`
`25
`
`

`

`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`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
`
`65457050.1
`
`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