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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Although a new grounds of rejection has been used to address additional limitations that have been added to the claims, a response is considered necessary for several of Applicant’s arguments since the combination of Ellis (US 2002/0054068) in view of Downey (US 2010/0162305) will continue to be used to meet several claimed limitations.
On pages 11-13 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the system of Ellis based on the teachings of Downey, and therefore, the Patent Office has failed to properly identify the rational underpinnings required to support a conclusion of obviousness over the proposed combination of references. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation to combine the references was given from the reference themselves and was not based on any improper hindsight reconstruction. Such motivation being given as “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 (see Downey; page 1, paragraph 7).” Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize elements of the Downey reference for the improvement of the Ellis reference, as noted in the office action, and the combination of references of proper.
Any of Applicant’s additional remarks not explicitly addressed are considered moot in view of the Examiner’s above response and/or the rejection(s)/citation(s) provided in the current office action below.
Applicant is suggested to provide more detail as to what they believe constitutes the true invention of the application. This could help distinguish over the prior art of record, alleviate misinterpretation issues, and serve to move prosecution forward on the application in a more expedited manner.
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.
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 a plurality of previously displayed 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 a time 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 a time 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).
Regarding claim 2, Ellis in view of Downey and Olson 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 and Olson 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 and Oslon 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 and Olson 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 and Olson 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 and Olson 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 and Olson 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 and Olson 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 and Olson 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 and Olson 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 and Olson, US 2011/0085781, and further in view of McClanahan et al., US 2011/0311205.
Regarding claim 5, Ellis in view of Downey and Olson 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 and Olson 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, 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, 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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