DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/04/2025 has been entered.
Preliminary Remarks
This is a reply to the arguments filed on 06/04/2025, in which, claims 1 and 12 are amended. Claims 1-22 remain pending in the present application with claims 1 and 12 being independent claims.
When making claim amendments, the applicant is encouraged to consider the references in their entireties, including those portions that have not been cited by the examiner and their equivalents as they may most broadly and appropriately apply to any particular anticipated claim amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 04, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/04/2025 with respect to amended claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 of this title, 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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasek et al. (US 20200236433 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Hasek”) in view of Dhanabalan et al. (US 20150319494 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Dhanabalan”), and further in view of Johnston et al. (US 20180113579 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Johnston”).
Regarding claim 1, Hasek discloses a method for enabling cross-service content recording, the method comprising:
identifying a first content item consumed from a first content service (see Hasek, paragraph [0061]: “the user may submit a request for an instance of content using the second content access device 203. However, that instance of content may already be currently being accessed by the first content access device 201”); and
identifying a second content item related to the first content item that is not available from the first content service (see Hasek, paragraph [0061]: “disabling access to the instance of content by the first content access device 201 and allowing access to the second content access device”).
Regarding claim 1, Hasek discloses all the claimed limitations with the exception of wherein the first content item is part of a series; wherein the first content item is different from the second content item, and the second content item is one of an unwatched episode of the series, a future scheduled episode of the series, an episode of a prequel to the series, or an episode of a sequel to the series; retrieving programming schedule data from a second content service; determining, based on the programming schedule data, whether the second content item is scheduled to be available from the second content service; in response to determining that the second content item is scheduled to be available from the second content service, scheduling recording of the second content item from the second content service; and generating for output a confirmation that recording of the second content item from the second content service has been scheduled.
Dhanabalan from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses retrieving programming schedule data from a second content service (see Dhanabalan, paragraph [0022]: “EPG server 215 may deliver EPG data that includes various data related to the display of an electronic program guide at devices 110-1 through 110-n via network 220. An “electronic program guide,” as referred to herein, includes menus of television program scheduling information that are shown by a content service provider (e.g., cable or satellite TV provider) to its users and that display current and upcoming television programming”);
determining, based on the programming schedule data, whether the second content item is scheduled to be available from the second content service (see Dhanabalan, paragraph [0022]: “EPGs enable the user to identify desired programming using interactive menus and, if DVR functionality is present in the user's system, may permit the user to schedule the recording of desired programming via the EPG”; and paragraph [0045]: “Scheduling conflict manager 115 may communicate, for example, with OTT content source 210 or EPG server 215 (FIG. 2) to identify if a particular program associated with a DVR tuner conflict will be available to a user as OTT content … scheduling conflict manager 115 may identify subscriptions/services through which the user has access to on-demand content to determine if a particular program is available on-demand. If the particular program is available on-demand, scheduling conflict manager 115 may provide a suggestion to the user that tuning of live television (and canceling the scheduled DVR recording) can continue without risk of losing access to content of the scheduled DVR recording“);
in response to determining that the second content item is scheduled to be available from the second content service, scheduling recording of the second content item from the second content service (see Dhanabalan, paragraph [0026]: “user 100-1 may interact with STB 300-1 and TV 305-1 via a remote control device (not shown) to schedule the recording of programs”); and
generating for output a confirmation that recording of the second content item from the second content service has been scheduled (see Dhanabalan, paragraph [0047]: “Notification window 702 may include a timeframe indication section 704 (e.g., “recordings are scheduled to start in 2 minutes”)”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Dhanabalan with the teachings as in Hasek. The motivation for doing so would ensure the system to have the ability to use system and method disclosed in Dhanabalan to deliver EPG data that includes various data related to the display of an electronic program guide at devices including menus of television program scheduling information that are shown by a content service provider (e.g., cable or satellite TV provider) to its users and that display current and upcoming television programming; to enable the user to identify desired programming using interactive menus and, if DVR functionality is present in the user's system, may permit the user to schedule the recording of desired programming via the EPG; to allow user to schedule the recording of programs and to use notification window to confirm scheduled recordings thus retrieving programming schedule data from a second content service; determining whether the second content item is scheduled to be available from the second content service based on the programming schedule data, scheduling recording of the second content item from the second content service in response to determining that the second content item is scheduled to be available from the second content service and generating for output a confirmation that recording of the second content item from the second content service has been scheduled in order to send instruction to the recording service to schedule the recording of the second content item so that user can communicate with the content provider to schedule recording of the selected programs.
Regarding claim 1, Hasek and Dhanabalan disclose all the claimed limitations with the exception of wherein the first content item is part of a series; and wherein the first content item is different from the second content item, and the second content item is one of an unwatched episode of the series, a future scheduled episode of the series, an episode of a prequel to the series, or an episode of a sequel to the series.
Johnston from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses wherein the first content item is part of a series (see Johnston, FIG. 6A and paragraph [0153]: “the user may have watched previous episodes in a television series such that the current/next episode is included in user interface”); and
wherein the first content item is different from the second content item, and the second content item is one of an unwatched episode of the series, a future scheduled episode of the series, an episode of a prequel to the series, or an episode of a sequel to the series (see Johnston, FIG. 6L and paragraph [0161]: “in user interface 602, representation 606-9 of suggested media item A-2, and representation 606-10 of suggested media item A-1. Media item A-1 is optionally a first episode in collection A of episodic media items, and media item A-2 is optionally a second episode in collection A of episodic media items. The user has purchased and partially watched media item A-1, as shown in information 612 in FIG. 6L. As a result of the user having purchased and/or watched (at least partially) media item A-1, the electronic device has suggested media item A-2 to the user, as shown in FIG. 6L. Further, the electronic device has done so, despite that fact that the user watched media item A-1 via media provider 1, and media item A-2 is available via a different media provider 3, not via media provider 1”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Johnston with the teachings as in Hasek and Dhanabalan. The motivation for doing so would ensure the system to have the ability to use the unified media browsing application that presents media items from different media applications in a unified media browsing user interface disclosed in Johnston to display a watched episode in a television series such that the current/next episode is included in user interface; to display first and second episodes in collection A of episodic media items; to suggest second media item to the user as a result of the user having watched first media item wherein the second media item is available via a different media provider not the same as first media item thus displaying the first content item and second media content of a series wherein the first content item is different from the second content item and the second content item is an unwatched episode of the series in order to provide different content items are available from different content platforms so that viewers can view different episodes of the series from different content providers.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teachings of Hasek, Dhanabalan, and Johnston as discussed above also disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising requesting authorization from the second content service to access the second content item at a time at which the second content item is scheduled to be available (see Dhanabalan, paragraph [0045]: “scheduling conflict manager 115 may identify subscriptions/services through which the user has access to on-demand content to determine if a particular program is available on-demand. If the particular program is available on-demand, scheduling conflict manager 115 may provide a suggestion to the user that tuning of live television (and canceling the scheduled DVR recording) can continue without risk of losing access to content of the scheduled DVR recording”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teachings of Hasek, Dhanabalan, and Johnston as discussed above also disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising requesting authorization from a recording service for allocation of recording resources at a time at which the second content item is scheduled to be available (see Hasek, paragraph [0117]: “The resource manager 840 may be responsible for persistence and digital rights policy along with allocating, monitoring, and controlling resources, particularly pulling ABR segments and bandwidth therefor, for recording and playback related services”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, the combination teachings of Hasek, Dhanabalan, and Johnston as discussed above also disclose the method of claim 3, further comprising:
in response to receiving authorization from the recording service for allocation of recording resources at the time at which the second content item is scheduled to be available, transmitting, to the recording service, an instruction to schedule recording of the second content item at the time (see Hasek, paragraph [0115]: “playing or recording of the media content 850, 851 may be scheduled for the subscriber using, for example, the player 960 of the device 803. At 717, one or more ABR segments of the media content 850, 851 may be played independent of the subscriber's location so as to allow the viewing of the media content 850, 851 on the device 803”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teachings of Hasek, Dhanabalan, and Johnston as discussed above also disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising generating for output a user interface element linked to a recording service, wherein selection of the user interface element causes output of a user interface of the recording service (see Dhanabalan, paragraph [0042]: “scheduling conflict manager 115 may present the list of unwatched alternate content simultaneously with the conflict notification. In another implementation, as described further in connection with FIG. 7D, scheduling conflict manager 115 may present the list of alternate content as a tiered or layered selection process after the conflict notification. Selection of one of the recorded content options allows the user to select alternate programming without disturbing the DVR recording schedules”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teachings of Hasek, Dhanabalan, and Johnston as discussed above also disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising generating for output an identifier of the second content item, wherein scheduling recording of the second content item from the second content service occurs in response to selection of the identifier (see Dhanabalan, paragraph [0038]: “Stored DVR content list 620 may include content identifiers (e.g., program titles, recording dates, etc.) along with other metadata indicating features associated with each content item”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, the combination teachings of Hasek, Dhanabalan, and Johnston as discussed above also disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising generating for output, in a user interface of the first content service, an indication that the second content item has been recorded (see Hasek, paragraph [0062]: “the user may submit a request for an instance of content using the second content access device 203 after that instance of content has been stored to the first content access device 201”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, the combination teachings of Hasek, Dhanabalan, and Johnston as discussed above also disclose the method of claim 7, further comprising:
receiving selection of the indication that the second content item has been recorded (see Hasek, paragraph [0126]: “providing a catalog of media content data to display to the user including program schedule information at a predetermined time in response to the user communicating a selection to the resource manager”); and
in response to receiving selection of the indication that the second content item has been recorded, beginning playback of the recorded second content item (see Hasek, paragraph [0126]: “The user may use the scheduler service 976 to specific channels to view from the guide or line-up displayed, user privileges, and other settings (e.g., such as DVR settings and preferences default DVR scheduling settings”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, the combination teachings of Hasek, Dhanabalan, and Johnston as discussed above also disclose the method of claim 8, further comprising in response to detecting an end of playback of the second content item, returning to the user interface of the first content service (see Hasek, paragraph [0062]: “stored instance of content cannot be accessed by the first content access device 201 until the second content access device 203 is no longer accessing the instance of content”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, the combination teachings of Hasek, Dhanabalan, and Johnston as discussed above also disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first content service is an on-demand content service and the second content service is a linear content service (see Hasek, paragraph [0116]: “The system 800 may be configured with a video core 849 adapted for content processing and communication for ingesting and packaging linear content 851 (e.g., live broadcasting) and non-linear (e.g., video on demand (VOD)) content 850 by communication lines 848 across a communication network or CDN 847 to a video edge 845 to service a device 803 (e.g., set top box, tablet, smart phone, computer, etc.) of a user that subscribes to a content subscription service”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, the combination teachings of Hasek, Dhanabalan, and Johnston as discussed above also disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether a user currently associated with the first content service is subscribed to the second content service (see Hasek, paragraph [0082]: “the content provider device may verify registration for content access devices that do not have verified approved geolocations but not verify registrations for content access devices that do”); and
in response to determining that the user is not subscribed to the second content service, generating for output an option to subscribe to the second content service (see Hasek, paragraph [0083]: “404 is illustrated and described as the content provider device providing an error message if the content access device is not registered. However, it is understood that this is an example. In various implementations, the content provider device may perform various other actions such as prompting for content access device registration, offering access to content that does not require registration, and so on”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above. In addition, the combination teachings of Hasek, Dhanabalan, and Johnston as discussed above also disclose a system for enabling cross-service content recording, the system comprising:
input/output circuitry (see Hasek, paragraph [0065]: “input/output components”); and
control circuitry (see Hasek, paragraph [0065]: “The content access devices 301, 302 may respectively include one or more processing units”).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 2 above.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 3 above.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 4 above.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 5 above.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 6 above.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 7 above.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 8 above.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 9 above.
Claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 10 above.
Claim 22 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 11 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIENRU YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 AM - 6 PM 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, THAI TRAN can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
NIENRU YANG
Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/NIENRU YANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2484
/THAI Q TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2484