`
`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
`
`
![](/site_media/img/document_icon.png)
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
![](/site_media/img/error_icon.png)
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.
![](/site_media/img/error_icon.png)
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
![](/site_media/img/error_icon.png)
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.
![](/site_media/img/document_icon.png)
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.
![](/site_media/img/document_icon.png)
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
![](/site_media/img/error_icon.png)
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