DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05 MAY 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s current amendment (dated 05 MAY 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-6 and 13-34 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference(s) and/or citations being used in the current rejection.
Examiner’s Note
It is noted to Applicant that Allowable subject matter has been indicated in related Applications 14/084,021 and 16/863,687. Applicant is suggested to try and incorporate similar Allowable content into the current Application’s claims to try and move prosecution forward to an Allowance. Applicant is also cautioned not to repeat allowable subject matter in a manner that could lead to a double patenting rejection. This is just a note and suggestion by the Examiner, any amendments made by Applicant will be searched thoroughly before a final indication on Allowability is made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 13-24, and 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis et al., US 2002/0054068 in view of Downey et al., US 2010/0162305 and further in view of Olson, US 2011/0085781 and Templeman, US 2013/0247107.
Regarding claim 1, Ellis discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a request for a storage operation for a content item comprising a content type (user selects a program to be recorded; Fig. 13, element 1302, and pages 8-9, paragraph 80, and wherein at least associated with a type; page 6, paragraph 61, and page 1, paragraph 8, and with entries related to a program, i.e. similar types such as by channel, network, actual program, etc.; page 9, paragraph 81);
determining, based on the content item, a scheduled time of the storage operation for the content item (system can determine a recording start time for the selected program, and wherein based on determined/scheduled start/end times; page 2, paragraph 10, and page 8, paragraph 75, and page 9, paragraph 83, and Fig. 12a, element 1204);
determining, based on timing for a plurality of previously outputted content items of the content type, a historic timing information for the content type (system can make determination/prediction, based on at least a type of the program and the normal/scheduled ending time, along with other previous program information, that the program timing differs, i.e. historic timing information; page 9, paragraphs 80-82, and wherein with viewing history information, i.e. watched content/programs; page 4, paragraph 42, and channel history information, i.e. broadcast/watched content/programs, and log of time changes related to previous programs, i.e. previously broadcast/watched; page 9, paragraph 81); and
modify, based on the historic timing information, the scheduled time of the storage operation for the content item (can adjust/modify the scheduled starting time for the recording based on the predicted time delays/extensions; page 8, paragraphs 77-78, and page 9, paragraphs 80 and 82).
While Ellis does allude to information being communicated between device(s) (communication of instructions/data; page 6, paragraph 57, and page 7, paragraph 69), Ellis does not explicitly disclose determining based on timing offsets for a plurality of different content items, an offset for content; and
sending, to a recipient device, an instruction configured to cause the recipient device to modify a storage operation.
In a related art, Downey does disclose sending, to a recipient device, an instruction configured to cause the recipient device to modify a storage operation (based on determination of at least a program extension, server can send message(s) to set-top client which will then provide to the recording device in order to have it continue/extend the original recording(s); page 5, paragraph 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Ellis and Downey, by allowing certain instructions/commands to be communicated between various devices in the system, in order to provide an improved system and method for extending the recording time of an audio/video recording device such as a digital video recorder, personal video recorder and/or memory storage device (Downey; page 1, paragraph 7).
Ellis in view of Downey does not explicitly disclose determining based on timing offsets for a plurality of different content items, an offset for content.
In a related art, Olson does disclose a historical time offset for content based on previous content items (timing and/or time offset can be determined based on information from previous shows, i.e. historical timings/offset(s); pages 6-7, paragraph 79, and pages 7-8, paragraph 89), and modifying based on the historical time offset (determination of adjustment based on the time offset; page 5, paragraph 65, and page 8, paragraphs 92-95).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Ellis, Downey, and Olson, by allowing various historical content information to be utilized to determine any offsets in timing associated with the start/end of content, in order to provide an improved system and method for modifying the timing of a content recorder by using audio identification to improve convenience for consumers and make more efficient use of memory space available on DVRs (Olson; page 1, paragraphs 7 and 20).
Ellis in view of Downey and Olson does not explicitly disclose determining based on timing offsets for a plurality of different content items.
In a related art, Templeman does disclose determining based on timing offsets for a plurality of different content items, an offset for content (system can review historical program start/end timing information for a channel, i.e. previously outputted and for different content/programs, of the channel, i.e. wherein the content on the channel is considered a particular type because it is all related to that channel, in order to determine adjustment periods, i.e. offset(s) for recording(s); page 2, paragraphs 8 and 17, and page 4, paragraph 32, and page 6, paragraph 47, and page 11, paragraph 88, and page 12, paragraph 95, and page 13, paragraph 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Ellis, Downey, Olson, and Templeman by allowing various historical content information for a plurality of different programming to be utilized to determine any offsets in timing associated with the start/end of content, in order to provide an improved system and method for alleviating a viewer missing how a television program begins or ends by adding a front-end adjustment and/or a back-end adjustment to a recording (Templeman; page 2, paragraph 17).
Regarding claim 2, Ellis in view of Downey, Olson, and Templeman discloses the scheduled time of the storage operation comprises at least one of a scheduled start time, a scheduled end time for the content item or a scheduled duration for the content item (Ellis; adjustment to the starting/ending time of the program and/or the duration of the recording based on a determined duration of the time change; page 9, paragraph 80, and Fig. 13, elements 1308, 1310, 1312, and 1314, and Downey; indicated change in duration; page 2, paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 3, Ellis in view of Downey, Olson, and Templeman discloses the content type comprises at least one of a live event, a sporting event, a concert, or a political debate (Ellis; based on the actual program, including program type; page 9, paragraph 81, and wherein this can include at least a real-time event, such as a sporting event; page 1, paragraph 8, and page 10, paragraph 86, and Downey; including at least a sporting event; page 1, paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 4, Ellis in view of Downey, Olson, and Templeman discloses determining that the content item will continue past a scheduled end time of the storage operation for the content item (Ellis; system can make determination/prediction, based on at least a type of the program and the normal/scheduled ending time, along with other program information, that the program will extend past the normal end time for the recording; page 9, paragraphs 80-82); and
sending another instruction to modify the scheduled end time of the storage operation (Ellis; can include an end time for the content; page 2, paragraph 10, and page 8, paragraph 75, and page 9, paragraph 83, and Fig. 12a, element 1208, and wherein based on a determined/predicted extension, can modify the recording end time; page 8, paragraphs 77-78, and page 9, paragraphs 80 and 82, and Downey; communicating message(s) in order to adjust timing of original recording(s); page 5, paragraph 26, and wherein including one or more messages, i.e. another; page 5, paragraph 26, and page 7, paragraphs 37-38, and Olson; with adjustment to recording operations; page 5, paragraph 65, and page 8, paragraphs 92-95).
Claim 13, which discloses a method, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Ellis in view of Downey, Olson, and Templeman discloses the timing offset information for the content type comprises a start time for the content item, and wherein the instruction is configured to cause the recipient device to modify a recording start time of the storage operation for the content item (Ellis; can include a start time for the content; page 2, paragraph 10, and page 8, paragraph 75, and page 9, paragraph 83, and Fig. 12a, element 1208, and wherein based on a determined/predicted delay, can modify the recording start time; page 8, paragraphs 77-78, and page 9, paragraphs 80 and 82, and Downey; communicating message(s) in order to adjust timing of original recording(s); page 5, paragraph 26, and Olson; timing and/or time offset can be determined based on information from previous shows, i.e. historical timings/offset(s); pages 6-7, paragraph 79, and pages 7-8, paragraph 89, and including at least a starting time; page 1, paragraph 9, and with adjustment based on the time offset; page 5, paragraph 65, and page 8, paragraphs 92-95).
Regarding claim 15, Ellis in view of Downey, Olson, and Templeman discloses the timing offset information comprises an end time for the content type, and wherein the instruction is configured to cause the recipient device to modify a recording end time of the storage operation for the content item (Ellis; can include an end time for the content; page 2, paragraph 10, and page 8, paragraph 75, and page 9, paragraph 83, and Fig. 12a, element 1208, and wherein based on a determined/predicted extension, can modify the recording end time; page 8, paragraphs 77-78, and page 9, paragraphs 80 and 82, and Downey; communicating message(s) in order to adjust timing of original recording(s); page 5, paragraph 26, and Olson; timing and/or time offset can be determined based on information from previous shows, i.e. historical timings/offset(s); pages 6-7, paragraph 79, and pages 7-8, paragraph 89, and including at least an ending time; page 1, paragraph 9, and with adjustment based on the time offset; page 5, paragraph 65, and page 8, paragraphs 92-95).
Regarding claim 16, Ellis in view of Downey, Olson, and Templeman discloses the timing offset information comprises an end time for the content type, and wherein the instruction is configured to cause the recipient device to modify a recording duration of the storage operation for the content item (Ellis; can include an end time for the content; page 2, paragraph 10, and page 8, paragraph 75, and page 9, paragraph 83, and Fig. 12a, element 1208, and wherein based on a determined/predicted timing information, adjustment to the ending time of the program and/or the duration, i.e. based on a determined duration of the time change; page 8, paragraphs 77-78, and page 9, paragraphs 80 and 82, and Fig. 13, elements 1308, 1310, 1312, and 1314 and Downey; communicating message(s) in order to adjust timing of original recording(s); page 5, paragraph 26, and change in duration; page 2, paragraph 9, and Olson; timing and/or time offset can be determined based on information from previous shows, i.e. historical timings/offset(s); pages 6-7, paragraph 79, and pages 7-8, paragraph 89, and including at least an ending time; page 1, paragraph 9, and with adjustment based on the time offset; page 5, paragraph 65, and page 8, paragraphs 92-95).
Regarding claim 17, Ellis in view of Downey, Olson, and Templeman discloses determining, a scheduled end time for the content item (Ellis; system can determine a normal/scheduled end time for the selected program, and wherein based on scheduled start/end times; page 2, paragraph 10, and page 8, paragraph 75, and page 9, paragraph 83, and Fig. 12a, element 1208); and
determining, based on the timing offset information and the scheduled end time for the content item, that the content item will continue past the scheduled end time (Ellis; system can make determination/prediction, based on at least a type of the program and the normal/scheduled ending time, along with other program information, that the program will extend past the normal end time; page 9, paragraphs 80-82, and Olson; timing and/or time offset can be determined based on information from previous shows, i.e. historical timings/offset(s); pages 6-7, paragraph 79, and pages 7-8, paragraph 89, and including at least an ending time; page 1, paragraph 9),
wherein the instruction is configured to cause the recipient device to modify a recording end time of the storage operation for the content item (Ellis; based on a determined/predicted extension, can modify the recording end time; page 8, paragraphs 77-78, and page 9, paragraphs 80 and 82, and Downey; communicating message(s) in order to adjust timing of original recording(s); page 5, paragraph 26, and Olson; with adjustment based on the time offset; page 5, paragraph 65, and page 8, paragraphs 92-95).
Regarding claim 18, Ellis in view of Downey, Olson, and Templeman discloses determining a scheduled duration for the content item (Ellis; duration of the program, i.e. such as from 7:00P-10:15P; page 8, paragraph 75, and page 9, paragraph 83, and Fig. 12a, element 1208, and Downey; system can determine normal duration, such as record for 3 hours; page 5, paragraph 26); and
determining, based on the timing offset information and the scheduled duration, that the content item will continue past a scheduled end time for the content item (Ellis; system can make determination/prediction, based on at least a type of the program and the normal/scheduled ending time/duration, along with other program information, that the program will extend past the normal end time; page 9, paragraphs 80-82, and Olson; timing and/or time offset can be determined based on information from previous shows, i.e. historical timings/offset(s); pages 6-7, paragraph 79, and pages 7-8, paragraph 89, and with at least starting and ending times, i.e. duration; page 1, paragraph 9),
wherein the instruction is configured to cause the recipient device to modify a recording duration of the storage operation for the content item (Ellis; adjustment to the ending time of the program and/or the duration, i.e. based on a determined duration of the time change; page 8, paragraphs 77-78, and page 9, paragraphs 80 and 82, and Fig. 13, elements 1308, 1310, 1312, and 1314 and Downey; communicating message(s) in order to adjust timing of original recording(s); page 5, paragraph 26, and change in duration; page 2, paragraph 9, and Olson; with adjustment based on the time offset; page 5, paragraph 65, and page 8, paragraphs 92-95).
Regarding claim 19, Ellis in view of Downey, Olson, and Templeman discloses determining, based on the timing offset information for the content type and a scheduled end time of the storage operation, that the content item will continue past the scheduled end time for the content item (Ellis; system can make determination/prediction, based on at least a type of the program and the normal/scheduled ending time/duration, along with other program information, that the program will extend past the normal end time for storing the program; page 9, paragraphs 80-82, and Olson; timing and/or time offset can be determined based on information from previous shows, i.e. historical timings/offset(s); pages 6-7, paragraph 79, and pages 7-8, paragraph 89, and with at least starting and ending times, i.e. duration; page 1, paragraph 9),
wherein the instruction is configured to cause the recipient device to modify at least one of a recording end time or a recording duration of the storage operation for the content item (Ellis; adjustment to the ending time of the program and/or the duration, i.e. based on a determined duration of the time change; page 8, paragraphs 77-78, and page 9, paragraphs 80 and 82, and Fig. 13, elements 1308, 1310, 1312, and 1314 and Downey; communicating message(s) in order to adjust timing of original recording(s); page 5, paragraph 26, and change in duration; page 2, paragraph 9, and Olson; with adjustment based on the time offset; page 5, paragraph 65, and page 8, paragraphs 92-95).
Regarding claim 20, Ellis in view of Downey, Olson, and Templeman discloses modifying the time of the storage operation comprises modifying one or more of a recording start time, a recording end time, or a recording duration (Ellis; adjustment to the starting/ending time of the program and/or the duration, i.e. based on a determined duration of the time change; page 8, paragraphs 77-78, and page 9, paragraphs 80-82, and Fig. 13, elements 1308, 1310, 1312, and 1314 and Downey; communicating message(s) in order to adjust timing of original recording(s); page 5, paragraph 26, and change in duration; page 2, paragraph 9).
Claim 21, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
one or more processors (Ellis; control circuitry; page 5, paragraph 57, including processor(s); page 4, paragraph 41); and
memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to perform operations (Ellis; with memory storing instructions; page 5, paragraph 57, and Downey; with executable software, stored in memory; page 1, paragraph 8).
Claim 22, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2.
Claim 23, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claim 24, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Claim 27, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 1 and 21.
Claim 28, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 14.
Claim 29, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 15.
Claim 30, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 16.
Claim 31, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 17.
Claim 32, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 18.
Claim 33, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 19.
Claim 34, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 20.
Claims 5-6 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis et al., US 2002/0054068 in view of Downey et al., US 2010/0162305, Olson, US 2011/0085781, and Templeman, US 2013/0247107, and further in view of McClanahan et al., US 2011/0311205.
Regarding claim 5, Ellis in view of Downey, Olson, and Templeman discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 4, as well as determining that the content item will continue past the scheduled end time of the storage operation for the content item (Ellis; system can make determination/prediction, based on at least a type of the program and the normal/scheduled ending time, along with other program information, that the program will extend past the normal end time; page 9, paragraphs 80-82), and determining the scheduled end time for the content has occurred (Ellis; system can utilize cues in order to make determination about a program that is about to start and/or end, i.e. end time has occurred; page 10, paragraph 85).
Ellis in view of Downey, Olson, and Templeman does not explicitly disclose determining the scheduled end time for the content item has occurred; and
determining, based on the scheduled end time occurring, an event associated with the content item is in progress.
In a related art, McClanahan does disclose determining the scheduled end time for the content item has occurred (can determine scheduled end time of content occurring; page 10, paragraph 110, and wherein game would normally be over based on data indicating particular inning of a game; page 6, paragraph 69); and
determining, based on the scheduled end time occurring, an event associated with the content item is in progress (can detect, based on certain data, that certain events are occurring after the scheduled end time, such as extra innings, overtime, stoppage time, etc., i.e. game still in progress; page 10, paragraph 110, and page 6, paragraph 69, and page 2, paragraph 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Ellis, Downey, Olson, Templeman, and McClanahan by allowing certain events to be detected and used at particular times when making determinations related to recordings, in order to provide an improved system and method for enhancing a user experience in viewing recorded programming by synthesizing program guide data with sports data thereby allowing a recording system to better identify programming that corresponds to a users' intent when requesting programming to be recorded (McClanahan; page 1, paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 6, Ellis in view of Downey, Olson, Templeman, and McClanahan discloses the event comprises at least one of a live event, a sporting event, a concert, or a political debate (Ellis; based on the actual program, including program type; page 9, paragraph 81, and wherein this can include at least a real-time event, such as a sporting event; page 1, paragraph 8, and Downey; including at least a sporting event; page 1, paragraph 7).
Claim 25, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claim 26, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights