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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues against the Agustin reference relative to element “unlocking access to the second video for the user device” in claim 52. This argument is not persuasive.
Agustin discloses that the rich media account management engine 330 within the rich media communication engine 125 receives user credentials and authenticates access to rich media messaging services. For example, the first rich media application engine 107 within a first user device 105 provides a request to initiate rich message composition to the rich media communication engine 125. The first rich media application engine 107 loads a startup screen and then authenticates access to rich media messaging services. Authentication credentials may comprise a username and a password. See 0063, 0084. That is, the first user device is granted access to rich media messaging services via valid authentication credentials as an authorized user device.
Agustin further discloses that the rich media communication engine 125 provides rich media element recommendations to the first rich media application engine 107 within the first user device 105. The first rich media application engine 107 within the user device 105 displays in the rich media message composition window the rich media element recommendations as visual elements based on approved contextual tag. Such a display may allow the first user at the user device 105 to select the visual elements to integrate into the rich media message as the first user continues to compose the rich media message. See 0068. In other words, the Agustin’s system allows the authorized user device 105 displaying the rich media element recommendations as visual elements and using the visual elements in the rich media message.
In view of the foregoing, the claimed “based at least in part on the connotation indicator, unlocking access to the second video for the user device” is interpreted as and making the visual element corresponding to the rich media element recommendation available to the authorized user device based at least in part on approved contextual tag such as displaying and selecting the visual element to integrate into the rich media message at the authorized user device in the Agustin reference.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim 63 recites similar features as claim 52. Accordingly, the responses to arguments addressed with respect to claim 52 above are also applicable to claim 63.
Dependent claims 53-62 and 64-71 are rejected at least for reasons described above regarding independent claims 52 and 63 and by virtue of their respective dependencies upon independent claims 52 and 63.
Therefore, the rejections of claims 52-71 are maintained.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 52, 53, 63 and 64 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 11-14 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,708,674 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the invention recited in claims 52, 53, 63 and 64 of the instant application are anticipated by an obvious variant of the elements recited in patent claims 1-4 and 11-14. Therefore, claims 52, 53, 63 and 64 of the instant application are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims 1-4 and 11-14 and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
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.
Claims 52, 55-60, 62, 63 and 66-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneiderman et al (US 20140188997 A1) in view of Agustin et al. (US 20150100647 A1).
Regarding claim 52, Schneiderman teaches a method comprising:
receiving, from a user device, a selection of a portion of a first video for sharing (receiving a selection of a portion of a media, e.g., a media clip or scene of a movie, for sharing from a user device, e.g., 115a – see 0003, 0004, 0029, 0030, 0037, 0056, 0095, 0097);
identifying textual data received from the user device to be added to the portion of the first video that was selected for sharing (identifying the text generated by a user to be inserted into the portion of the media as a commentary via user device, e.g., “This is my favorite part” as comment generated by the user that is added to a specific scene for sharing - 0003, 0006, 0028, 0029, 0034, 0036, 0057, 0066, 0096, 0100).
Schneiderman lacks to teach the features of parsing the textual data to determine a plurality of phrases; identifying a second video from a plurality of candidate videos by searching metadata of the plurality of candidate videos for any of the plurality of phrases, wherein the second video is different from the first video; analyzing the textual data that is to be added to the portion of the first video to identify a connotation indicator; and based at least in part on the connotation indicator, unlocking access to the second video for the user device.
Agustin teaches analyzing a textual portion of a message to determine the textual string, determining context and meaning of the textual string from the textual portion of the message, looking up rich media element for recommendation based on approved contextual tag representing the context and meaning of the textual string, and making the visual element corresponding to the rich media element recommendation available to the authorized user device based at least in part on approved contextual tag such as displaying and selecting the visual element to integrate into the rich media message at the authorized user device. Examples of rich media elements include images, memes, video, interactive elements, and animation elements. See 0038, 0039, 0045, 0059, 0063, 0065, 0066, 0067, 0068, 0074, 0076, 0084. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to modify Schneiderman by parsing the textual data to determine a plurality of phrases; identifying a second video from a plurality of candidate videos by searching metadata of the plurality of candidate videos for any of the plurality of phrases, wherein the second video is different from the first video; analyzing the textual data that is to be added to the portion of the first video to identify a connotation indicator; and based at least in part on the connotation indicator, unlocking access to the second video for the user device as taught or suggested by Agustin for offering the targeted media content to the user to further enhance the user’s viewing experience.
Regarding claim 55, Schneiderman teaches generating, for the portion of the first video, metadata indicative of a subject related to the portion (indicating a subject related to the portion of media content – see 0003, 0004, 0006, 0007, 0028, 0029, 0030, 0037, 0095, 0097).
Regarding claim 56, Schneiderman in combination with Agustin teaches that wherein the second video is identified based on the metadata indicative of the subject (identifying the rich media element based on contextual tags - see Agustin: abstract, 0005, 0065; metadata indicating a subject to the portion of media content – see Schneiderman: 0003, 0004, 0029, 0030, 0037, 0095, 0097).
Regarding claim 57, Schneiderman teaches that wherein the metadata of the first video comprises metadata corresponding to the portion of the first video (metadata indicating a subject to the portion of media content - see 0003, 0004, 0029, 0030, 0037, 0095, 0097).
Regarding claim 58, Schneiderman teaches that wherein the portion comprises a video clip cropped from the first video (a portion of movie, e.g., scene – 0006, 0007, 0029, 0030, 0034, 0097).
Regarding claim 59, Schneiderman teaches that sharing the portion and the textual data added to the portion via one or more social platforms (sharing, via social network, the portion of the media included the added text - see 0006, 0007, 0028, 0029, 0030, 0036, 0037, 0057, 0075).
Regarding claim 60, Schneiderman teaches wherein the user device is a first user device (one of user devices, .e.g., 115a – FIG. 1), the method further comprising: in response to receiving a selection of the shared portion from a second user device, providing a second user device with a copy of the first video, wherein the copy of the first video comprises a position indicator corresponding to a starting position for the portion in the copy of the first video (for instance, presenting the media with the video commentary 1110 when the media reaches a play point 806, where the video commentary includes a clip or portion of the media shared by the by the first user 115a – see FIGs. 1, 11; 0006, 0007, 0028, 0029, 0056, 0103).
Regarding claim 62, Schneiderman teaches that wherein the first video is a streaming video provided by a content provider (e.g., live, broadcast or pre-recorded web media provided by a provider – see 0057, 0062, 0096, 0097).
Regarding claim 63, see rejection of claim 52.
Regarding claim 66, see rejection of claim 55.
Regarding claim 67, see rejection of claim 57.
Regarding claim 68, see rejection of claim 58.
Regarding claim 69, see rejection of claim 59.
Regarding claim 70, see rejection of claim 60.
Regarding claim 71, see rejection of claim 62.
Claims 53, 54, 64 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneiderman et al (US 20140188997 A1) in view of Agustin et al. (US 20150100647 A1) and further in view of Newell et al. (US 20180183886 A1).
Regarding claims 53-54, Schneiderman in view of Agustin teaches that the connotation indicator comprises one or more phrases from the textual data (e.g., the textual strings). See Agustin: abstract, 0065-0067. Both lack to teach the features of modifying a strength of association between a user of the user device and the second video based at least in part on determining that the connotation indicator for the textual data that is to be added to the portion of the first video is positive, wherein the modifying the strength of association between the user of the user device and the second video comprises increasing the strength of association between the user and the second video; and wherein determining that the connotation indicator is positive comprises determining that the one or more phrases are indicative of a positive connotation. Newell teaches modifying a strength of association between a user of the user device and the second video based at least in part on determining that the connotation indicator for the textual data that is positive (adjusting the likelihood for the user related to the second media content based at least in part on determining the positive words/expression from the words inputted by the user in associated with the first/viewed media content - see 0045, 0062, 0064, 0065, 0080); wherein the modifying the strength of association between the user of the user device and the second video comprises increasing the strength of association between the user and the second video (increasing the value, e.g.., assigning higher value, for the user related to the second media content based at least in part on determining the positive words/expression – see 0045, 0062, 0064, 0065), determining that the connotation indicator is positive comprises determining that the one or more phrases are indicative of a positive connotation (determining positive words/expressions according to one or more phrases – see 0050, 0060-0062, 0064). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schneiderman and Agustin by modifying a strength of association between a user of the user device and the second video based at least in part on determining that the connotation indicator for the textual data that is to be added to the portion of the first video is positive, wherein the modifying the strength of association between the user of the user device and the second video comprises increasing the strength of association between the user and the second video; and wherein determining that the connotation indicator is positive comprises determining that the one or more phrases are indicative of a positive connotation as taught or suggested by Newell for the purposes of adjusting the correlation between user and the media content for increasing effectiveness of choosing the media content item that is likely to be of interest to the user.
Regarding claims 64-65, see rejection of claims 53-54.
Claim 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneiderman et al (US 20140188997 A1) in view of Agustin et al. (US 20150100647 A1) and further in view of Hughes et al (US 20200193056 A1).
Regarding claim 61, Schneiderman teaches that wherein the shared portion is a first shared portion (e.g., first shared portion shared by one of users 115 – see FIG. 1; 0006, 0007, 0028, 0029, 0056), the method further comprising: identifying a second shared portion (e.g., second shared portion as a post shared by another user – see FIG. 1, 0006, 0077). Schneiderman lacks to teach comparing the first shared portion and the second shared portion; calculating, based on the comparing, a level of similarity between the first shared portion and the second shared portion; and determining whether the level of similarity exceeds a threshold. However, Hughes teaches comparing a first content item and a second content item; calculating, based on the comparing, a level of similarity between the first content item and the second content item as a similarity score; and determining that the first and second content items have similar content if the similarity score exceeds a threshold value. See 0102-0104. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schneiderman and Agustin by comparing the first shared portion and the second shared portion; calculating, based on the comparing, a level of similarity between the first shared portion and the second shared portion; and determining whether the level of similarity exceeds a threshold as taught or suggested by Hughes for the purpose of sufficiently classifying the content.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGOC K VU whose telephone number is (571)272-7306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday & Thursday: 10AM-6:30PM EST; Tuesday, Wednesday & Friday: out of office.
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, NATHAN FLYNN can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/NGOC K VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421