`
`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. §
`
`ll2(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre—AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
`
`description requirement. Applicant respectfully traverses the Examiner’s rejections.
`
`In rejecting claims 6—35 and 41—132 under 35 U.S.C. § ll2(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, “the plurality of media 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” (claims 6 and
`
`79), or the claim language, “the plurality of 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” (claims 41 and 93). Applicant asserts that the
`
`specification does provide support for this language (e.g., in paragraphs 40, 55, 57, 58, 59-63,
`
`77, 78, 139—141, 252, 280, 293, and 346 of the application as originally filed). In just one
`
`example, paragraph 55 explains: “For example, a program can be configured to stream ten
`
`minutes of a sitcom based media, insert an advertisement, and then return to the sitcom based
`
`media.” Clearly, the sitcom in this example has a plurality of segments, and it is a single title.
`
`However, in order to advance prosecution of the instant application, Applicant has
`
`amended each of independent claims to 6, 41, 79, and 93 to remove the language objected to
`
`by the Examiner. By doing so, Applicant does not relinquish the subject matter and reserves
`
`its rights in the same.
`
`In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully requests 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.
`
`685680442
`
`22
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`Rejections under 35 US. 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—116, 122—124, and 129—132 under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`US. Patent No. 6,389,467 (Eyal) in view of US. Patent No. 5,987,621 (Duso et al.) and US.
`
`Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0188570 (Holliman et al.). Applicant respectfully
`
`traverses the Examiner’s rejection as follows.
`
`As indicated above, Applicant has amended claim 6 to recite that the plurality of
`
`media content segments for the requested media are_stored at multiple media storage devices
`
`in accordance with storage rules included within an order associated with the requested
`
`media. 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 [0059]—[0063] and paragraphs [0139]—[0141].
`
`For example, paragraphs [0059] states that “[a]n order is a request by a paying or
`
`collecting entity for the network owner to provide some sort of streaming or related service,
`
`such as storage.” Paragraph [0063] states that an order can contain “storage rules for
`
`determining where the media or program will be located and the costs associated with the
`
`physical storage of the media.” According to paragraph [0063], “[s]torage rules allow the
`
`publisher to target media to MMS locations that they believe will provide the most streaming
`
`service. For example, advertising media that is localized to the mid—west of the United States
`
`of America could be located on only MMSs within that region. Storage rules can specify a
`
`single MMS device, an offline storage location that is not attached to any MMS, multiple
`
`MMS devices, all MMS devices, and other networks that can provide the same media, if
`
`needed.”
`
`In the embodiment described beginning with paragraph [0139], a media owner
`
`generates a program with an order. The program includes multiple media items, such as a
`
`media clip for a movie and an advertisement, and a geographic restriction requiring the
`
`program to be placed on a switch in the western region of the Unites States, including
`
`685680442
`
`23
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`California. Paragraph [0141] describes that the ESRP 104 distributes the program to multiple
`
`switches in the western United States, including California.
`
`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 (Applicant asserts it is not), Eyal discloses that the media
`
`files are stored at various sites on the Internet irrespective of any rules (see, e.g., column 8,
`
`line 45 through column 9, line 55 and column 11, line 59 through column 12, line31). Thus,
`
`Eyal fails to teach or suggest that the media files are stored at multiple media storage devices
`
`in accordance with storage rules included within an order associated with the requested media
`
`as claimed. This deficiency of Eyal is also not cured by Duso et al. or Holliman et al. as
`
`neither of these makes any mention of any storage rules included with an order associated
`
`with requested media or storing media content segments in accordance with such storage
`
`rules. For at least these reasons, Applicant requests that the rejection of claims 6, 17—19, 22,
`
`24—27, 41, 52—55, 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 Duso et al. and Holliman et
`
`al. in further view of U.S. Patent No. 5,758,257 (Herz et al.). Applicant submits that Herz et
`
`al. fails to cure the deficiencies of Eyal, Duso et al., and Holliman et al. as set forth above in
`
`regards to claims 6, 41, 79, and 93. Accordingly, Applicant requests 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 Duso et al. and Holliman et al. in further view of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,933,811 (Angles et al.). Applicant submits that Angles et al. fails to cure the
`
`deficiencies of Eyal, Duso et al., and Holliman et al. as set forth above in regards to claims 6,
`
`41, 79, and 93. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the rejection of claims 15 and 50 be
`
`withdrawn.
`
`685680442
`
`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 Duso et al. and Holliman et al. in further view of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,654,807 (Farber et al.). Applicant submits that Farber et al. fails to cure the
`
`deficiencies of Eyal, Duso et al., and Holliman et al. as set forth above in regards to claims 6,
`
`41, 79, and 93. Accordingly, Applicant requests 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 Duso et al. and Holliman et
`
`al. in further view of U.S. Patent No. 6,385,596 (Wiser et al.). Applicant submits that Wiser
`
`et al. fails to cure the deficiencies of Eyal, Duso et al., and Holliman et al. as set forth above
`
`in regards to claims 6, 41, 79, and 93. Accordingly, Applicant requests 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 December 7,
`
`2018.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`685680442
`
`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 Applicant(s)
`
`685680442
`
`26
`
`