Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The RCE (Request for Continued Examination) filed 3/27/26 has been entered. Accordingly, the amendment filed 2/25/26 has been entered.
3. Claims 1-20 are pending.
4. This application is a continuation of S.N. 17/403638 filed 8/16/21, now U.S. Patent 11,550,989, which itself is a continuation of S.N. 16/949,686, now U.S. Patent 11,093,689.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
6. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,550,989. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because please see the correspondence as explained below:
Regarding claim 1, ‘989 claim 1 recites tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media comprising program instructions stored therein, wherein the program instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing system to perform functions comprising (claim 1, column 27 lines 8-12 recite this verbatim): receiving, from a remote system, a page object that comprises a page format identifier associated with page formatting rules for formatting page elements for display within a page (claim 1, column 27 lines 13-19 recite receiving from the streaming system [which is the remote system] a page object with a page format identifier associated with page formatting rules for formatting page elements for display within a page); determining an amount of available space within the page (claim 1, column 27 lines 20-21 recite receiving a first set of page elements and claim 2 (which incorporates claim 1 by dependency) column 27 lines 43-46 recite a quantity of page elements in the first set of page elements is based on how many page elements can be displayed within the page, so this amount is being determined); requesting, from the remote system, a first quantity of page elements that, when rendered on the page, is sufficient to occupy the available space within the page (claim 1, column 27 lines 20-21 recite receiving a first set of page elements from the media streaming service for display within the page and claim 2, column 27 lines 43-46 recite a quantity of page elements in the first set of page elements is based on how many page elements can be displayed within the page, so the amount received is the determined sufficient amount); causing a graphical user interface associated with the computing system to display the first quantity of page elements within the page according to the page formatting rules (claim 1 column 27 lines 25-28 recite the feature practically verbatim, and claim 2 column 27 line 44 shows the set is the quantity of page elements); after determining that a position of the page has moved and revealed additional available space, requesting a second quantity of page elements that, when rendered on the page, is sufficient to occupy the additional available space (claim 1, column 27 lines 30-32 recite receiving the request to view additional page elements via the graphical user interface, which claim 5 (which incorporates claim 5 by dependency) column 27 lines 63-67 shows recites is a result of scrolling/moving the position of the page, and claim 1, column 27 lines 33-35 show in response to that, requesting a second set of page elements. Claim 2, column 27 lines 43-46 recite a quantity of page elements in the first set of page elements is based on how many page elements can be displayed within the page, so the amount received is the determined sufficient amount that, when rendered on the page, is sufficient to occupy the additional available space); and causing the graphical user interface to display the second quantity of page elements within the additional available space according to the page formatting rules (claim 1, column 27 lines 39-42 show causing the graphical user interface to display the second set of page elements within the page, and this would be according to the formatting rules recited earlier), wherein the first quantity of page elements and the second quantity of page elements comprise content data associated with media content for playback by the one or more networked media devices (claim 1, column 27 lines 15-16 and 37-38 show that both the first set of page elements and the second set of page elements are content data associated with media content for playback by one or more networked devices).
Regarding claim 3, ‘989 claim 3 recites the page is configured to display a plurality of page elements (claim 3 column 27 lines 48-49 recite this verbatim), and wherein a total quantity of page elements in the plurality of page elements is greater than a sum of the first quantity of page elements and the second quantity of page elements (claim 3 column 27 lines 49-53 recite a total quantity of page elements in the plurality of page elements is greater than a sum of a quantity of page elements in the first set of page elements and a quantity of page elements in the second set of page elements).
Regarding claim 4, ‘989 claim 4 recites the same features verbatim.
Regarding claim 5, ‘989 claim 5, column 27 lines 64 shows that the request comprises a scroll input received from the user via the graphical user interface and this causes the graphical user interface to transition from displaying the first set of page elements to the second set of page elements. Thus it is determined that a user initiated a page scroll operation.
Regarding claim 6, ‘989 claim 6 recites the same features verbatim.
Regarding claim 7, ‘989 claim 7 recites the same features verbatim.
Regarding claim 8, ‘989 claim 8 recites the same features verbatim.
Regarding claim 9, ‘989 claim 9 recites the same features verbatim.
Regarding claim 10, ‘989 claim 10 recites the same features verbatim.
Regarding claim 11, ‘989 claim 1 recites a computing device (column 27 lines 8-11 recite the non-transitory computer readable media comprising program instructions, and one or more processors executing the instructions to cause a computer system to perform functions. This constitutes a computer device.), one or more processors (again column 27 lines 10-11 recite the one or more processors); tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media comprising program instructions stored therein, wherein the program instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing system to perform functions comprising (claim 1, column 27 lines 8-12 recite this verbatim): receiving, from a remote system, a page object that comprises a page format identifier associated with page formatting rules for formatting page elements for display within a page (claim 1, column 27 lines 13-19 recite receiving from the streaming system [which is the remote system] a page object with a page format identifier associated with page formatting rules for formatting page elements for display within a page); determining an amount of available space within the page (claim 1, column 27 lines 20-21 recite receiving a first set of page elements and claim 2 (which incorporates claim 1 by dependency) column 27 lines 43-46 recite a quantity of page elements in the first set of page elements is based on how many page elements can be displayed within the page, so this amount is being determined); requesting, from the remote system, a first quantity of page elements that, when rendered on the page, is sufficient to occupy the available space within the page (claim 1, column 27 lines 20-21 recite receiving a first set of page elements from the media streaming service for display within the page and claim 2, column 27 lines 43-46 recite a quantity of page elements in the first set of page elements is based on how many page elements can be displayed within the page, so the amount received is the determined sufficient amount); causing a graphical user interface associated with the computing system to display the first quantity of page elements within the page according to the page formatting rules (claim 1 column 27 lines 25-28 recite the feature practically verbatim, and claim 2 column 27 line 44 shows the set is the quantity of page elements); after determining that a position of the page has moved and revealed additional available space, requesting a second quantity of page elements that, when rendered on the page, is sufficient to occupy the additional available space (claim 1, column 27 lines 30-32 recite receiving the request to view additional page elements via the graphical user interface, which claim 5 (which incorporates claim 5 by dependency) column 27 lines 63-67 shows recites is a result of scrolling/moving the position of the page, and claim 1, column 27 lines 33-35 show in response to that, requesting a second set of page elements. Claim 2, column 27 lines 43-46 recite a quantity of page elements in the first set of page elements is based on how many page elements can be displayed within the page, so the amount received is the determined sufficient amount that, when rendered on the page, is sufficient to occupy the additional available space); and causing the graphical user interface to display the second quantity of page elements within the additional available space according to the page formatting rules (claim 1, column 27 lines 39-42 show causing the graphical user interface to display the second set of page elements within the page, and this would be according to the formatting rules recited earlier), wherein the first quantity of page elements and the second quantity of page elements comprise content data associated with media content for playback by the one or more networked media devices (claim 1, column 27 lines 15-16 and 37-38 show that both the first set of page elements and the second set of page elements are content data associated with media content for playback by one or more networked devices).
Regarding claim 13, ‘989 claim 3 recites the same features verbatim.
Regarding claim 14, ‘989 claim 4 recites the same features verbatim.
Regarding claim 15, ‘989 claim 5, column 27 lines 64 shows that the request comprises a scroll input received from the user via the graphical user interface and this causes the graphical user interface to transition from displaying the first set of page elements to the second set of page elements. Thus it is determined that a user initiated a page scroll operation.
Regarding claim 16, ‘989 claim 6 recites the same features verbatim.
Regarding claim 17, ‘989 claim 7 recites the same features verbatim.
Regarding claim 18, ‘989 claim 8 recites the same features verbatim.
Regarding claim 19, ‘989 claim 9 recites the same features verbatim.
Regarding claim 20, ‘989 claim 10 recites the same features verbatim
7. In view of the amendment, the 112 rejection has been removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman (US 2014/0053111 A1) and Brown et al “Brown” (US 20030128234 A1).
11. Regarding claim 1, Beckman shows a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media comprising program instructions stored therein, wherein the program instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing system to perform functions (para 65 shows the memory devices and processors executing program instructions in the computer system) comprising: receiving, from a remote system, a page object that comprises a page format identifier associated with page formatting rules for formatting page elements for display within a page (Figure 1, para 39-41 show loading a web page with placeholder and other format information associated with specific instructions on how to format called content and called elements for display on the page); determining an amount of available space within the page (para 40-41 shows for example ascertaining the amount of space available to be occupied by the called elements); requesting, from the remote system, a first quantity of page elements that, when rendered on the page, is sufficient to occupy the available space within the page (Figure 2, para 40, 46, 48 show loading the first called content and called elements to occupy the available space within the page); causing a graphical user interface associated with the computing system to display the first quantity of page elements within the page according to the page formatting rules (Figure 2, para 40, 43, 46 show displaying the page elements/called elements, called content within the page in a graphical user interface according to the formatting rules); after determining that a position of the page has moved and revealed additional available space, requesting a second quantity of page elements that, when rendered on the page, is sufficient to occupy the additional available space (Figure 5, 6, para 9, 48-51 show determining the scroll operation was performed to scroll the page reveals new open positions on the page, and requesting new content elements to populate the new positions); and causing the graphical user interface to display the second quantity of page elements within the additional available space according to the page formatting rules (Figure 5, 6, para 9, 48-51 show the graphical user interface then displays the new content elements within the new open positions according to the same formatting rules, para 59 show new actuable elements and content arising from a page position movement), wherein the first quantity of page elements and the second quantity of page elements comprise content data associated with media content for playback by one or more networked media devices (Figures 2, 4-6 and para 9, 48-50, 53 show the first quantity of page elements include media objects such as the movie files, dynamic stock ticker and photos, and the second quantity of page elements include media objects such as the embedded photo. Also the video object in para 71 and movie files in para 9 could be in either quantity of page elements. The computer with user interface receiving the media over the Web in Figure 1, 15 and para 85 is the networked media device). Beckman does not show that the second quantity of page elements is requested explicitly from a remote system in response to the determination that the page position has moved and revealed the additional available space. Brown however shows a second quantity of page elements is requested explicitly from a remote system in response to the determination that a page position has moved and revealed additional available space (para 49, 51-52, claims 2-3 show that in response to determining a page has been scrolled and that new white space is now available, requesting second content comprising a second quantity of page elements. Para 5, 73 show the content may be requested from a remote server such as a web server and this would apply to the second content as well). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to request the second quantity of page elements from a remote system in response to the determination that a page position has moved and revealed additional available space in Beckman, as is done in Brown, because it would provide an efficient and flexible way to fill the space whenever it becomes available, without having to store the second quantity of items locally, and thus without concern for local storage constraints. Furthermore, it would allow efficient requesting and displaying of web content, as Beckman para 37 shows. See Brown para 5, 52.
12. Regarding claim 2, Beckman shows one or more page elements of the first quantity of page elements are configured to perform a process that involves periodically and automatically receiving content data associated with media content from the remote system (para 48-50 show the dynamic stock ticker element that periodically and automatically receives stock ticker data over the Web) while the one or more page elements are visibly rendered on the page, allowing the process to execute and while the one or more page elements are not visibly rendered on the page, suspending execution of the process (para 48-50 show when the stock ticker element is visibly rendered on the page, the dynamic ticker process and display is executed; but after a scroll or other operation that stops the dynamic ticker from being visibly rendered, the dynamic ticker process and display is suspended).
13. Regarding claim 3, wherein the page is configured to display a plurality of page elements, and wherein a total quantity of page elements in the plurality of page elements is greater than a sum of the first quantity of page elements and the second quantity of page elements (Beckman para 39-41 and 48-50 show that the first and second quantity of called elements or content is each a subset of positions and space within the total amount of page elements. The combined amount for example after the second quantity has been loaded still is less than the total amount of elements on the page).
14. Regarding claim 4, the content data associated with media content for playback by the one or more networked media devices in an individual page element corresponds to one of a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) or a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) where the media content associated with the content data can be obtained by the one or more networked media devices for playback (Beckman Figure 15, para 54, 85 show the media content for playback in a content element is part of the data loaded from a URL, and in general over the Web which would be via a URL or URI).
15. Regarding claim 5, after determining that a position of the page has moved and revealed additional available space, comprises determining that a user initiated page scroll operation has occurred (Beckman Figure 5, para 9, 48-50 show determining the user performed a scroll operation to scroll the page, and this reveals new open positions on the page).
16. Regarding claim 6, Beckman shows looking up the page format identifier in a configuration database at the computing system, wherein the configuration database comprises page formatting rules associated with page format identifiers (para 21, 40, 59, claim 17 show stored metadata settings and media format settings that show how to configure and format content and elements within the page); and causing the graphical user interface to display the first quantity of page elements within the page according to the page formatting rules obtained from the configuration database (para 39-41, 43, 46 show displaying the page elements/called elements, called content within the page in a graphical user interface according to the formatting rules which are obtained from stored metadata and format settings described above in para 21, 40, 59).
17. Regarding claim 9, please note the alternative recitation – Beckman para 9, 41, 49 show the called elements or called content may be displayed in a text block format. Also the stock ticker element may be for example displayed in a text block format.
18. Claims 11-16 and 19 show the same features a claims 1-6 and 9 respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons. In addition for claim 11, note that Beckman Figure 1, 15 show the computer device).
19. Claim(s) 7-8, 10, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman and Brown and Federov et al “Federov” (US 2013/0073568 A1).
20. Regarding claim 7, Beckman para 48-50 show the page dynamic stock ticker page object and para 9, 71 show the embedded media objects, but Beckman and Brown do not explicitly show receiving a user selection of a media streaming service via the graphical user interface; requesting the page object from the media streaming service; and receiving the page object from the media streaming service after requesting the page object from the media streaming service. Federov however does show receiving a user selection of a media streaming service via the graphical user interface (para 76, 81-82 show a user selecting a button or link on a graphical user interface for a music streaming service); requesting the page object from the media streaming service and receiving the page object from the media streaming service after requesting the page object from the media streaming service (Figure 4, para 76, 81-82 show selecting and receiving the embedded object to play the music from the streaming music service). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select and receive embedded media page objects in Beckman, especially as modified by Brown, from a streaming media service as is done in Federov, because it would provide an efficient way to receive and display an embedded media object.
21. Regarding claim 8, Beckman shows receiving a user selection of a particular page element via the graphical user interface (para 9 show selecting the embedded media content page element) and playing media such as in para 9,71 , but Beckman and Brown do not explicitly show after receiving the user selection of the particular page element, causing the networked playback device to obtain the media content corresponding to the particular page element play the obtained media content. Federov however does show receiving a user selection of a particular page element via the graphical user interface (para 76 shows receiving user selection of the embedded music page object); and after receiving the user selection of the particular page element, causing the networked playback device to obtain the media content corresponding to the particular page element from a corresponding media streaming service and play the obtained media content (para 76 shows then receiving the music content over the network such as the Web, and then playing the music on the device). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the media content corresponding to the page element in Beckman, especially as modified by Brown, from a streaming media service and play it as is done in Federov, because it would provide an efficient way to receive and utilize a media page object.
22. Regarding claim 10, please note the alternative recitation. Beckman and Brown do not explicitly show the media content for playback by the device comprises at least one or more tracks. But Beckman at least para 9 and 71 does show playable media content. Federov furthermore shows media content includes a media track (Figures 5A-C, para 115, 147 show the media track selection for playback). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the media tracks in Beckman, especially as modified by Brown, as is done in Federov, because it would provide an efficient way to receive and utilize a media page object.
23. Claims 17-18 and 20 show the same features as claims 7-8 and 10 respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons.
24. Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Beckman and Federov do not show the newly amended feature that the second quantity of page elements is requested explicitly from a remote system in response to the determination that the page position has moved and revealed the additional available space, but please note that Brown has been brought in to show this feature.
Applicant’s Representative and Examiner have discussed amending the claim language to more fully bring out the invention disclosed in the Specification, for example more advanced embodiments such as different playback zones and synchronized playing of media between different rooms and zones on multiple devices. No amendment with such features has yet been developed, but Applicant’s Representative is welcome to contact Examiner to continue the discussion.
Conclusion
25. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a) Fan (CN 110472168 A) shows a system to update the rendering of a page after a scroll operation.
b) Zhou (CN 100421108 C) shows a system to display media objects to playback media from a streaming media service.
c) Paunikar (AU 2009285798 A1) shows a method to determine space on a page and fills it with page elements.
d) Frank (CA 3120573 C) shows synchronized playback of audio based on user location.
e) Cohen (CA 2685289 A1) shows determining available web page space on which to place advertising content in response to scrolling the web page.
26. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN PAUL SAX whose telephone number is (571)272-4072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 - 6:00 Est.
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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached at 571-272-4046. 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.
/STEVEN P SAX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146