`
`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. Support for the amendments can be found throughout
`
`the application as originally filed, including paragraphs [0051] — [0055].
`
`Previous Double Patenting Rejection
`
`In the Office action dated June 10, 2016, the Examiner provisionally rejected claims 6—
`
`35 and 41—128 on the ground of non—statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
`
`claims 1—27 and 35—47 of copending Application No. 13/843,412. In Applicants’ response
`
`dated January 5, 2017, Applicants requested that the Examiner hold this rejection in abeyance
`
`until the claims in the instant application have been found allowable. However, in the instant
`
`Office action, the Examiner made no mention of the previous double patenting rejection.
`
`Applicants respectfully request confirmation from the Examiner as to whether or not the
`
`previous double patenting rejection remains in effect.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`The Examiner objected to claims 107 and 108 citing to certain informalities. As
`
`indicated above, Applicants have corrected the informalities noted by the Examiner.
`
`Rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 103
`
`Claims 6, 17-19, 22, 24-27, 41, 52-55, 59-62, 79-88, 93-102, 107-116, and 122-124
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 6, 17—19, 22, 24—27, 41, 52—55, 59-62, 79—88, 93—102,
`
`107—116, and 122—124 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 et al.”). Applicants respectfully traverse the rejection as follows.
`
`First, Applicants would like to thank the Examiner for clarifying his position regarding
`
`the teachings of Eyal. Applicants now understand that the Examiner is equating each URL in
`
`a playlist as both the claimed “indication” and “information” (see page 2 of the Office action).
`
`605 65 006.1
`
`20
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`However, Applicants submit that even with this interpretation of Eyal, the present claims are
`
`patentable.
`
`Each of independent claims 6, 41, 79, and 93 recites, among other things, for each one
`
`of the plurality of media content segments, (i) determining, by the management system, a
`
`plurality of resources available to facilitate streaming the media content segment to the
`
`communication device and (ii) transmitting, from the management system to the
`
`communication device, an indication of the media content segment and information
`
`instructing the communication device how to communicate with each of the plurality of
`
`resources to cause the media content segment to be streamed to the communication device in
`
`accordance with 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, a
`
`capability of the communication device, and an attribute of the user. Thus, a plurality of
`
`resources are determined for each segment of the requested media content, and the 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 is transmitted.
`
`To the contrary, each URL in a playlist of Eyal identifies a single resource for
`
`obtaining a single media file. Eyal does not teach determining a plurality of resources for
`
`m of a plurality of segments of requested media content as claimed. Eyal also does not
`
`teach instructing, for each of a plurality of segments of the requested media content, how to
`
`communicate with each of the plurality of resources to cause the segment to be streamed as
`
`claimed. Hedge et al. also fails to provide for these deficiencies of Eyal.
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicants submit that claims 6, 17—19, 22, 24—27,
`
`41, 52—55, 59-62, 79—88, 93—102, 107—1 16, and 122—124 are patentable over Eyal in view of
`
`Hedge et al. Reconsideration of the claims and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`Claims 7-14: 16: 42-49: 51: 118-121: and 125-128
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 7—l4, 16, 42—49, 51, 118—121, and 125—128 are rejected
`
`under pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eyal in view of Hedge et al. and
`
`further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,758,257 (“Herz et al.”). Applicants respectfully traverse
`
`605650061
`
`21
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`the rejection in that Herz does not solve the deficiencies of Eyal and Hedge et al. as described
`
`above. Reconsideration of the claims and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`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 et al. and further in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,933,811 (“Angles et al.”). Applicants respectfully traverse the rejection in that Angles et al.
`
`does not solve the deficiencies of Eyal and Hedge et al. as described above. Reconsideration
`
`of the claims and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`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 et al. and further in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,654,807 (“Farber”). Applicants respectfully traverse the rejection in that Farber does not
`
`solve the deficiencies of Eyal and Hedge et al. as described above. Reconsideration of the
`
`claims and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`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 et al. and further in
`
`view of U.S. Patent No. 6,385,596 (“Wiser”). Applicants respectfully traverse the rejection in
`
`that Wiser does not solve the deficiencies of Eyal and Hedge et al. as described above.
`
`Reconsideration of the claims and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`New Claims 129-132
`
`Claims 129—132 have been added. Applicants submit that the subject matter of new
`
`claims 129—132 are neither taught nor suggested by the reference cited by the Examiner,
`
`whether taken alone or in combination.
`
`605650061
`
`22
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`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 March 27, 2017.
`
`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 Applicant’s 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,
`
`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
`
`605650061
`
`23
`
`
![](/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