`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`11/680,452
`
`02/28/2007
`
`Chuck Jennings
`
`081009-406855 (DIV2)
`
`5285
`
`POLSINELLI PC
`
`900 WEST 48TH PLACE
`SUITE 900
`
`KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 641 12-1895
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`BLAIR DOUGLAS B
`
`ART UNIT
`2442
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/02/2018
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`uspt@polsinelli.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`Off/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`11/680,452
`Examiner
`DOUGLAS B BLAIR
`
`Applicant(s)
`Jennings et al.
`Art Unit
`2442
`
`AIA Status
`No
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 2/28/2018.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expa/te Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`6—35 and 41—132 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 6—35 and 41—132 is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabte. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/Init events/pph/Index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)[:] The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)D accepted or b)l:] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12):] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)D All
`
`b)I:I Some**
`
`C)C] None of the:
`
`1.[:]
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:]
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.[:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) E] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20180327
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`The applicant’s reply filed on 2/28/2018 has overcome the previously applied rejections based
`
`on 35 USC section 112.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
`
`IN GENERAL—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and
`(a)
`of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
`enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to
`make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor orjoint
`inventor of carrying out the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and
`process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person
`skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the
`same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
`
`Claims 6-35 and 41-132 are rejected 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. The claim(s) contains subject
`
`matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled
`
`in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the
`
`application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
`
`Issue #1
`
`Claims 6, 41, 79, and 93 have been amended to feature the following limitation:
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`{iii} upon an occurrence oi an error in the streamin at the media oontent sement
`
`from the first one of the piuraiitti of resources to the communication device. causing the media
`
`content segment to he streamed by a second one ot the pitiratitv ot resooroes
`
`Paragraphs 164-167 of the specification disclose the following:
`
`{3164} White the iviiviS 112 is streaming the presentation to the viewer t‘i8, an error
`occurs, and the MMS is not state to continue streaming the presentation to the viewer.
`The ivtiviét 112 notifies the NE? tit) that it cannot continue streaming the presentation to the
`viewer t 18.
`
`{£3165} The NRP ttt‘t determines that the session for the presentation must he rerouted
`and communicates with a second tv’iiviS identified on the iist of switches oapahie of providing the
`presentation {not shown}. The second MMS notifies the NRP 'i
`‘i G that it can provide the
`presentation. The NRP tttt notifies the first iv'tiv‘iS 'i
`'12 to route the session to the second iv’ii‘viS.
`
`{£33165} The session is rooted to the second tvii‘v'tS. The second tv’ii‘v'tES provides the rest of
`the presentation to the viewer 1‘18. When the presentation has compieted, the session
`is terminated by the viewer ‘i to. The second iv’ii‘viS notities the NR? 1 to that the streaming tor
`the presentation is compiete and the session is terminated.
`
`{the}? in this exampie, the ivii‘viS i 'i2 transmits SiBs to the RTSiviS 'i (36 when the
`session is initiated. during the oontigorahie periods ot tirne white the presentation is
`streaming. during any viewing events, when the stream caster taiis, and when the session is
`rooted to the second tvii‘viES. Likewise. the second ivitviS transmits SiBs to the RTSMS the when
`the session is routed to the second MMS and the second MMS starts streaming the mediator
`the presentation, during the contignrahie periods of time white the presentation is streaming,
`when any viewing events occur, and when the session is terminated. Each of the SiBs contains
`the reservation identification tor the presentation, in addition, the NRP ‘ittt transmits i‘tRF’ iogs
`to the it'i'SiviS 106 identitving both the MMS 112 and the second MiviS when the respective
`iviiviSs provide the media streaming for the presentation.
`
`The applicant’s original disclosure did not specify that the error is an error in the streaming of a
`
`a particular content segment from the resource to a communication device. Paragraph 164 only defines
`
`an error as occurring and that the MMS (the resource) is not able to continue. Paragraph 164 could
`
`more likely covers an internal error in the resource itself and not ”an error in streaming” as claimed.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Page 4
`
`The applicant did not detail any detection of errors in the streaming of a particular segment from the
`
`MMS to the viewer and therefore it is not proper to claim such details now.
`
`Issue #2
`
`Claims 6, 41, 79, and 93 all feature the following limitations:
`
`causing the media centent segment t0 be etreamed by a eeeohd one at the pittraiity et
`
`resources, different item the first see at the piereitty et resources, to the cemmunieetten device
`
`in accordance with the at Feast one tute associated with the requested media content to ceiitrct
`
`hew the pittretity at media centent segments are te be streamed te the cemmunieatien device,
`
`the capebitity of the eemmunieetien device, and the attribute et the user“.
`
`The applicant did not disclose that the second MMS streams the media content segment
`
`according to the claimed rules. Paragraphs 164-167 of the applicant’s disclosure do not state anything
`
`about particular segments or what rules may be applied to those segments. Paragraphs 164-167 merely
`
`state that the second MMS takes over the session that was provided by the first MMS.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness
`
`rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`Claims 6, 17-19, 22, 24-27, 41, 52-55, 59-62, 79-88, 93-102, 107-116, 122-124, and 129-132
`
`is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 6,389,467
`
`to Eyal in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2002/0007418 by Hedge and U.S. Patent
`
`Number 5,987,621 to Duso et al.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Page 5
`
`As to claim 6, Eyal teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a management system via a
`
`communication network and from a communication device, a request associated with a user of the
`
`communication device to have media content streamed to the communication device, the requested
`
`media content comprising a plurality of media content segments (col. 19, line 48-col. 20, line 14), and
`
`the management system comprising a combination of hardware and software (Figure 4, search request
`
`203 and col. 19, lines 30-35 and 41-44); and for each one of the plurality of media content segments, (i)
`
`determining, by the management system, a plurality of resources (Figure 19, the media sites are
`
`resources) available to facilitate streaming the media content segment to the communication device
`
`(col. 14, lines 50-60 describes a process of determining whether the media sites corresponding to the
`
`URL are "available to facilitate streaming"); and (ii) transmitting, from the management system to the
`
`communication device, an indication of the media content segment (col. 19, lines 38-40) and
`
`information instructing the communication device identifying how to communicate with each of the
`
`plurality of resources to cause the media content segment to be streamed to the communication device
`
`(col. 20, lines 39-45) 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 (col. 15, lines 37-65) and an attribute of the communication device (col. 19, lines 41-44 and col.
`
`20, lines 23-29, the parameter); however Eyal does not explicitly teach that the media content segment
`
`is to be streamed to the communication device in accordance with at least one rule associated with a
`
`capability of the communication device and Eyal does not explicitly teach upon occurrence of an error in
`
`the streaming of the media content segment from the first one of the plurality of resources to the
`
`communication device, 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.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Page 6
`
`Hedge teaches a method for streaming media content segments to a communication device in
`
`accordance with at least one rule associated with a capability of the communication device (paragraphs
`
`63-66 and Figure 6).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`combine the teachings of Eyal regarding distributing content segments to client devices with the
`
`teachings of Hedge regarding streaming according to a rule associated with a capability of a client device
`
`because doing so allows for a better client experience (see teachings of Hedge) and Eyal already tracks
`
`the capabilities of the user device (see col. 13, line 46-col. 14, line 9 of Eyal) so implementing the
`
`teachings of Hedge in the system of Eyal will not require substantial modification of Eyal in order to be
`
`viable.
`
`Duso teaches upon occurrence of an error in the streaming of the media content segment from
`
`the first one of the plurality of resources to the communication device, 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 (see Figure 42 and col. 55, lines 3-21).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`combine the teachings of Eyal regarding error detection while streaming a segment with the teachings
`
`of Duso regarding causing a segment that was being streamed during an error to be restreamed because
`
`the teachings of Duso would allow for the user in Eyal not to miss the segment with the error. Eyal skips
`
`the segment where an error occurs during the streaming (see col. 27, line 66-col. 28, line 11 of Eyal) so
`
`implementing Duso’s failover technique would be an improvement to user experience.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`combine the teachings of Duso regarding streaming a segment from an alternative source with the
`
`teachings of Eyal and Hedge regarding applying rules to streaming because there would be no reason to
`
`prevent the new stream from having the same quality as the first stream. The Examiner notes that
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Page 7
`
`paragraphs 164-167 of the applicant’s disclosure do not even explicitly state that the rules are applied to
`
`the alternate segment.
`
`As to claim 41, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 6.
`
`As to claims 107 and 109, col. 19, lines 30-54 of Eyal.
`
`As to claims 108 and 110, col. 11, lines 31-37 of Eyal.
`
`As to claim 79, Eyal teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a management system via a
`
`communication network and from a communication device, a request associated with a user of the
`
`communication device to have media content streamed to the communication device, the requested
`
`media content comprising a plurality of media content segments (col. 19, line 48-col. 20, line 14) and
`
`the management system comprising a combination of hardware and software (Figure 4, search request
`
`203 and col. 19, lines 30-35 and 41-44); for each one of the plurality of media content segments, (i)
`
`determining, by the management system, a plurality of resources (Figure 19, the media sites are
`
`resources) other than the management system available to facilitate streaming of the media content
`
`segment to the communication device (col. 14, lines 50-60 describes a process of determining whether
`
`the media sites corresponding to the URL are "available to facilitate streaming"); and (ii) transmitting,
`
`from the management system to the communication device, an identification the media content
`
`segment (col. 19, lines 38-40) and information instructing the communication device how to
`
`communicate with each of the plurality of resources to cause the media content segments to be
`
`streamed to the communication device (col. 20, lines 39-45); 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 (col. 15, lines 37-65) and an attribute of the
`
`communication device (col. 19, lines 41-44 and col. 20, lines 23-29, the parameter); however Eyal does
`
`not explicitly teach that the media content segment is to be streamed to the communication device in
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Page 8
`
`accordance with at least one rule associated with a capability of the communication device and Eyal
`
`does not explicitly teach upon occurrence of an error in the streaming of the media content segment
`
`from the first one of the plurality of resources to the communication device, 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.
`
`Hedge teaches a method for streaming media content segments to a communication device in
`
`accordance with at least one rule associated with a capability of the communication device (paragraphs
`
`63-66 and Figure 6).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`combine the teachings of Eyal regarding distributing content segments to client devices with the
`
`teachings of Hedge regarding streaming according to a rule associated with a capability of a client device
`
`because doing so allows for a better client experience (see teachings of Hedge) and Eyal already tracks
`
`the capabilities of the user device (see col. 13, line 46-col. 14, line 9 of Eyal) so implementing the
`
`teachings of Hedge in the system of Eyal will not require substantial modification of Eyal in order to be
`
`viable.
`
`Duso teaches upon occurrence of an error in the streaming of the media content segment from
`
`the first one of the plurality of resources to the communication device, 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 (see Figure 42 and col. 55, lines 3-21).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`combine the teachings of Eyal regarding error detection while streaming a segment with the teachings
`
`of Duso regarding causing a segment that was being streamed during an error to be restreamed because
`
`the teachings of Duso would allow for the user in Eyal not to miss the segment with the error. Eyal skips
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Page 9
`
`the segment where an error occurs during the streaming (see col. 27, line 66-col. 28, line 11 of Eyal) so
`
`implementing Duso’s failover technique would be an improvement to user experience.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`combine the teachings of Duso regarding streaming a segment from an alternative source with the
`
`teachings of Eyal and Hedge regarding applying rules to streaming because there would be no reason to
`
`prevent the new stream from having the same quality as the first stream. The Examiner notes that
`
`paragraphs 164-167 of the applicant’s disclosure do not even explicitly state that the rules are applied to
`
`the alternate segment.
`
`As to claim 93, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 79.
`
`As to claims 17 and 52, see col. 26, lines 19—32 of Eyal.
`
`As to claims 18 and 53, see col. 19, lines 30—54 of Eyal.
`
`As to claims 19 and 54, see Figure 19 of Eyal.
`
`As to claims 22, 57, 86 and 100, see col. 9, lines 5—12 of Eyal, the multiple sites described
`
`by Eyal would qualify as a routing processor. The applicant does not explicitly limit the
`
`definition of a routing processor.
`
`As to claims 24 and 59, see col. 19, lines 30—54 of Eyal.
`
`As to claims 25, 26, 60, and 61, see col. 12, lines 64—67 of Eyal.
`
`As to claims 27 and 62, see col. 19, lines 30—54 of Eyal.
`
`As to claims 80, 81, 94, and 95, see col. 13, lines 1—8 of Eyal.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Page 10
`
`As to claims 82 and 96, media player of Eyal clearly receives a format that it can use to
`
`retrieve the media.
`
`As to claims 83 and 97, see col. 19, lines 30—54 of Eyal.
`
`As to claims 84 and 98, see col. 19, lines 30—54 of Eyal.
`
`As to claims 85 and 99, see col. 19, lines 30—54 of Eyal.
`
`As to claims 87, 88, 101, and 102, see Figure ll and corresponding text of Eyal.
`
`As to claims 111 and 113, see col. 19, lines 30—54 of Eyal.
`
`As to claims 112 and 114, see col. ll, lines 31—37 of Eyal.
`
`As to claims 115—117 and 122—124, see col. 13, lines 1—8 of Eyal.
`
`As to claims 129—132, see col. 20, lines 30—64 of Eyal.
`
`Claims 7-14, 16, 42-49, 51, 118-121, and 125-128 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 6,389,467 to Eyal in view of U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication Number 2002/0007418 by Hedge and U.S. Patent Number 5,987,621 to Duso et al. in further
`
`view of U.S. Patent Number 5,758,257 to Herz et al.
`
`As to claims 7 and 42, the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination teaches the subject matter of claims 79
`
`and 93 however the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination does not explicitly teach the use of a viewer profile
`
`to generate the identification for the plurality of portions of the media.
`
`Herz teaches a method and system for delivering media to a user comprising using a viewer
`
`profile to generate identification of a plurality of portions of media (Figures 1 and 2).
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Page 11
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination regarding providing media to a
`
`requester with the teachings of Herz regarding using a viewer profile to select media because using a
`
`viewer profile would enhance the selection based on search results used by Eyal without modifying the
`
`inventive concept of Eyal.
`
`As to claim 8, the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination teaches the subject matter of claims 79;
`
`however the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination does not explicitly teach selecting other media based upon a
`
`viewer profile.
`
`Herz teaches a method of selecting other media to be included in a presentation comprising
`
`selecting, based on upon a viewer profile, other media, wherein the other media is not requested by the
`
`user of the communication device to be streamed to the communication device and transmitting the
`
`other media to the communication device (col. 47, line 21-col. 48, line 22).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination regarding providing media to a
`
`requester with the teachings of Herz regarding adding other media to a presentation because doing so
`
`can generate revenue through advertising for the media provider. Eyal does suggest the insertion of
`
`commercials (see col. 13, lines 1-8).
`
`As to claim 43, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 8.
`
`As to claims 9, 10, 44, and 45, see col. 47, line 21-col. 48, line 22 of Herz.
`
`As to claims 11 and 46, see col. 48, lines 5-22 of Herz.
`
`As to claim 47, the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination teaches the subject matter of claims 93;
`
`however the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination does not explicitly teach the selection of a media clip based
`
`on collected data associated with the user of a communication device.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Page 12
`
`Herz teaches a method of selecting other media to be included in a presentation comprising
`
`collecting data and selecting a media clip based on the selected data (col. 39, line 20-col. 40, line 10).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination regarding providing media to a
`
`requester with the teachings of Herz regarding collecting data associated with a user for selecting media
`
`because using collected data can enhance the relevance of media for a particular user.
`
`As to claim 12, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 47.
`
`As to claims 13 and 48, see col. 38, lines 18-41 and col. 39, line 20-col. 40, line 10 of Herz.
`
`As to claims 14 and 49, see col. 47, line 21-col. 48, line 22 of Herz.
`
`As to claims 16 and 51, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 7 and 42.
`
`As to claims 118-121 and 125-128, the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination teaches the subject matter
`
`of claims 115 and 122 including inserting advertisements into segments (Eyal, col. 13, lines 1-8) however
`
`the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination does not explicitly teach how the advertisements are chosen.
`
`Herz teaches the manners of selecting advertisements based on audience, profiles,
`
`demographics and rules (col. 29, lines 31-51).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`combine the teachings of the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination regarding selecting commercials with the
`
`teachings of Herz regarding selecting commercials based on audience, profiles, demographics and rules
`
`because doing so allows for particularly relevant commercials.
`
`Claims 15 and 50 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S.
`
`Patent Number 6,389,467 to Eyal in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2002/0007418
`
`by Hedge and U.S. Patent Number 5,987,621 to Duso et al. in further view of U.S. Patent Number
`
`5,933,811 to Angles et al.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Page 13
`
`As to claims 15 and 50, the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination teaches the subject matter of claims
`
`79 and 93 however the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination does not explicitly teach the selection of other
`
`media to be included with a request based on revenue.
`
`Angles teaches a method and system for delivering media to a user comprising using a viewer
`
`profile to generate identification of a plurality of portions of media (col. 4, lines 17-26).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination regarding providing media to a
`
`requester with the teachings of Angles regarding selecting other media base done revenue because Eyal
`
`discusses commercials can be inserted into a playlist (see col. 13, lines 1-8) and Angles shows that
`
`revenue can be used to persuade a content provider to insert advertising.
`
`Claims 20, 21, 55, and 56 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`U.S. Patent Number 6,389,467 to Eyal in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number
`
`2002/0007418 by Hedge and U.S. Patent Number 5,987,621 to Duso et al. in further view of U.S. Patent
`
`Number 6,654,807 to Farber et al.
`
`As to claims 20 and 55, the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination teaches the subject matter of claims
`
`19 and 93 but the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination does not explicitly teach selecting a different resource
`
`if a resource is not available.
`
`Farber teaches a method of distributing data comprising selecting a different resource to
`
`facilitate streaming a portion of media if a resource is not able to stream the portion of media and
`
`transmitting an identification of a different resource to a communication device (See Figures 5 and 6).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination regarding providing media to a
`
`requester with the teachings of Farber regarding selecting another resource when a first resource is
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Page 14
`
`unavailable because such a selection allows for a more efficient distribution of data (see background of
`
`Farber).
`
`As to claims 21 and 56, see Figures 5 and 6 of Farber.
`
`Claims 23, 28-35, 58, 63-78, 89-92 and 103-106 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 6,389,467 to Eyal in view of U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication Number 2002/0007418 by Hedge and U.S. Patent Number 5,987,621 to Duso et al. in further
`
`view of U.S. Patent Number 6,385,596 to Wiser.
`
`As to claims 23 and 58, the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination teaches the subject matter of claims
`
`22 and 57; however the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination does not explicitly teach the generation of
`
`reservations comprising reservation IDs.
`
`Wiser teaches a method comprising generating a reservation associated with streaming a
`
`portion of media to a communication device with the reservation comprising a reservation ID (see
`
`Figure 9).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination regarding providing media to a
`
`requester with the teachings of Wiser regarding reservations because reservations allow for a media
`
`providing to obtain compensation for media provided to a user (see background of Wiser).
`
`As to claims 28-35 and 63-70, the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination teaches the subject matter of
`
`claims 79 and 93; however the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination does not teach the claimed authorization
`
`techniques.
`
`Wiser teaches the claimed techniques for authorizing the use of media (see Figure 9 and
`
`corresponding text).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination regarding providing media to a
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/680,452
`Art Unit: 2442
`
`Page 15
`
`requester with the teachings of Wiser regarding the authorized use of media because authorizing the
`
`use of media allows for compensation to be provided to a media producer (see background of Wiser).
`
`As to claims 71-78, the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination teaches the subject matter of claims 79
`
`and 93 however the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination does not explicitly teach the claimed settlement
`
`methods.
`
`Wiser teaches the claimed settlement methods (see col. 15-col. 20).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination regarding providing media to a
`
`requester with the teachings of Wiser regarding settlement techniques because financial settlement
`
`provides a benefit for content providers to provide media over a network (see background of Wiser).
`
`As to claims 89-92 and 103-106, the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination teaches the subject matter of
`
`claims 24, 27, 53, and 62 however the Eyal-Hedge-Duso combination does not explicitly teach
`
`embedding authentication information and reservation information in each URL.
`
`Wiser teaches a method of providing video via a URL including retrieving authentication and
`
`reservation information (col. 18, lines 9-55).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's
`
`invention to combine the teachings of the