`
`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
`
`