DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendments, filed 9/15/2025, have been entered and made of record. Claims 58, 61, 68, and 71 have been amended. Claims 58-77 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed on 9/15/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Day in view of Bumgardner and Barsness
Claims 58, 59, 62-64, 68, 69, and 72-74 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Day et al.(USPubN 2007/0174336; hereinafter Day) in view of Bumgardner et al.(USPubN 2008/0276284; hereinafter Bumgardner) further in view of Barsness et al.(USPubN 2008/0115171; hereinafter Barsness).
As per claim 58, Day teaches a method comprising: receiving, with control circuitry, a request from a user to record a media asset at a first time when the media asset is transmitted by a content source(“Control circuitry 118 is adapted to receive user input from input device 116 and execute the instructions of the interactive multimedia guidance application” in Para.[0033], “ the user selects two or more programs for recording” in Para.[0048]);
determining the media asset is not available for recording at the first time from the content source(“the interactive television application then checks to see if recording of the two or more programs would create a conflict. A conflict may occur, for example, if the recording times for the two or more programs overlap and not enough tuners are available to concurrently record the programs” in Para.[0049]);
determining whether the media asset is available in a video-on-demand (VOD) database; and in response to determining the media asset is available in the VOD database, adding the media asset from the VOD database to a program listing for user consumption(“a check is performed to see if at least one of the selected programs is available as VOD content from a VOD server. If one of the selected programs is available on a VOD server, a message may be displayed indicating this fact to the user. The interactive multimedia guidance application may then prompt the user to order the VOD version instead of the originally requested program version” in Para.[0050]).
Day is silent about scheduling the media asset for recording at a second time, wherein the second time is later than the first time; determining, during the window between the first and second time, whether the media asset is available and generating for display the program listing wherein the program listing comprises:(a}a listing of a plurality of media assets requested to be recorded by the user at a plurality of requested recording times, wherein [[and]] each media asset, of the plurality of media assets, was not available for recording at the respective requested recording time of the plurality of requested recording times due to a recording conflict with other media assets at the respective requested recording times, and(b) an indicator displayed simultaneously next to each media asset to indicate a recording status of each media asset.
Bumgardner teaches generating for display the program listing wherein the program listing comprises:(a}a listing of a plurality of media assets requested to be recorded by the user at a plurality of requested recording times, wherein [[and]] each media asset, of the plurality of media assets, was not available for recording at the respective requested recording time of the plurality of requested recording times due to a recording conflict with other media assets at the respective requested recording times, and(b) an indicator displayed simultaneously next to each media asset to indicate a recording status of each media asset(Para.[0060], [0062], Fig. 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to modify the teachings Day with the above teachings of Bumgardner in order to enhance and direct the viewing experience.
Barsness teaches scheduling the media asset for recording at a second time, wherein the second time is later than the first time; and determining, during the window between the first and second time, whether the media asset is available(“the controller 176 reads the schedule database 520 and determines whether the program content identified by the program identifier 435 is scheduled to be retransmitted at a later date and time by the content provider 195 and determines whether the user allows the program 435 to be recorded from a later signal transmission” in Para.[0084], “If the determination at block 835 is true, then rescheduling of the recording of the scheduled program content 502 is allowed and the scheduled program content 502 is scheduled to be retransmitted at a later time” in Para.[0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to modify the teachings Day and Bumgardner with the above teachings of Barsness in order to improve capabilities for viewing and selecting media programs.
As per claim 59, Day, Bumgardner and Barsness teach all of limitation of claim 58.
Day teaches further comprising: notifying the user of an alternative recorded program viewing opportunity, wherein the alternative recorded program viewing opportunity comprises the added media asset to the program listing; generating for display an option to view the alternative recorded program viewing opportunity; and in response to receiving a selection of the option to view the alternative recorded program viewing opportunity, generating for display a user interface representing the program listing on a display device(Para.[0050]).
As per claim 62, Day, Bumgardner and Barsness teach all of limitation of claim 58.
Day teaches wherein the determining whether the media asset is available in the video-on-demand (VOD) database comprises: accessing, with the control circuitry, a VOD server hosting the VOD database; comparing the media asset to one or more media assets in the VOD database; and in response to matching the media asset with the one or more media assets in the VOD database, transmitting the one or more media assets from the VOD server to user equipment(Para.[0029], [0050]).
As per claim 63, Day, Bumgardner and Barsness teach all of limitation of claim 62.
Day teaches wherein the one or more media assets from the video-on- demand server air on a different channel than the media asset (Para.[0029]).
As per claim 64, Day, Bumgardner and Barsness teach all of limitation of claim 58.
Day teaches wherein the added media asset to the program listing includes a rain check icon and a video-on-demand (VOD) icon(Fig. 7).
As per claim 68, Day teaches a system comprising: memory; and control circuitry (Para.[0033]) and the limitations in the claim 68 has been discussed in the rejection claim 58 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 69, the limitations in the claim 69 has been discussed in the rejection claim 59 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 72, the limitations in the claim 72 has been discussed in the rejection claim 62 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 73, the limitations in the claim 73 has been discussed in the rejection claim 63 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 74, the limitations in the claim 74 has been discussed in the rejection claim 64 and rejected under the same rationale.
Day in view of Bumgardner, Barsness and Wang
Claims 60 and 70 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Day et al.(USPubN 2007/0174336; hereinafter Day) in view of Bumgardner et al.(USPubN 2008/0276284; hereinafter Bumgardner) further in view of Barsness et al.(USPubN 2008/0115171; hereinafter Barsness) further in view of Wang et al.(USPubN 2008/0285943; hereinafter Wang).
As per claim 60, Day, Bumgardner and Barsness teach all of limitation of claim 58.
Day, Bumgardner and Barsness are silent about wherein the determining the media asset is not available for recording comprises: receiving, with the control circuitry, updated scheduling information associated with a plurality of media asset listings; and in response to receiving the updated scheduling information, determining, using the control circuitry, based on the updated scheduling information, the media asset scheduled to be recorded at a first time is no longer scheduled to be transmitted at the first time and will no longer be recorded.
Wang teaches wherein the determining the media asset is not available for recording comprises: receiving, with the control circuitry, updated scheduling information associated with a plurality of media asset listings; and in response to receiving the updated scheduling information, determining, using the control circuitry, based on the updated scheduling information, the media asset scheduled to be recorded at a first time is no longer scheduled to be transmitted at the first time and will no longer be recorded(Para.[0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to modify the teachings Day, Bumgardner and Barsness with the above teachings of Wang in order to improve the viewing experience.
As per claim 70, the limitations in the claim 70 has been discussed in the rejection claim 60 and rejected under the same rationale.
Day in view of Bumgardner, Barsness and Branam
Claims 61 and 71 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Day et al.(USPubN 2007/0174336; hereinafter Day) in view of Bumgardner et al.(USPubN 2008/0276284; hereinafter Bumgardner) further in view of Barsness et al.(USPubN 2008/0115171; hereinafter Barsness) further in view of Branam et al.(USPubN 2009/0142036; hereinafter Branam).
As per claim 61, Day, Bumgardner and Barsness teach all of limitation of claim 58.
Day, Bumgardner and Barsness are silent about wherein the scheduling of the media asset for recording at the second time comprises: detecting a recording conflict with the media asset at a first time; and determining the request to record the media asset is to be canceled at the first time based on a conflict resolution, wherein the conflict resolution is based on any of priorities assigned to conflicting scheduled recordings, existence of re-transmissions of the conflicting scheduled recordings, and intended viewing time frames.
Branam teaches wherein the scheduling of the media asset for recording at the second time comprises: detecting a recording conflict with the media asset at a first time; and determining the request to record the media asset is to be canceled at the first time based on a conflict resolution, wherein the conflict resolution is based on any of priorities assigned to conflicting scheduled recordings, existence of re-transmissions of the conflicting scheduled recordings, and intended viewing time frames(Para.[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to modify the teachings Day, Bumgardner and Barsness with the above teachings of Branam in order to improve the viewing experience.
As per claim 71, the limitations in the claim 71 has been discussed in the rejection claim 61 and rejected under the same rationale.
Day in view of Bumgardner, Barsness and Dillon
Claims 65, 66, 75, and 76 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Day et al.(USPubN 2007/0174336; hereinafter Day) in view of Bumgardner et al.(USPubN 2008/0276284; hereinafter Bumgardner) further in view of Barsness et al.(USPubN 2008/0115171; hereinafter Barsness) further in view of Dillon et al.(USPubN 2002/0056102; hereinafter Dillon).
As per claim 65, Day, Bumgardner and Barsness teach all of limitation of claim 58.
Day, Bumgardner and Barsness are silent about further comprising, in response to the determining the media asset is not available for recording: identifying one or more alternative media assets each with similar subject matter to the media asset; and adding the one or more alternative media assets to a second program listing for user consumption.
Dillon teaches further comprising, in response to the determining the media asset is not available for recording: identifying one or more alternative media assets each with similar subject matter to the media asset; and adding the one or more alternative media assets to a second program listing for user consumption (Para.[0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to modify the teachings Day, Bumgardner and Barsness with the above teachings of Dillon in order to improve the viewing experience.
As per claim 66, Day, Bumgardner, Barsness and Dillon teach all of limitation of claim 65.
Day teaches wherein each of the one or more alternative media assets is available in the video-on-demand database(Para.[0050]).
As per claim 75, the limitations in the claim 75 has been discussed in the rejection claim 65 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 76, the limitations in the claim 76 has been discussed in the rejection claim 66 and rejected under the same rationale.
Day in view of Bumgardner, Barsness, Dillon and Daigle
Claims 67 and 77 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Day et al.(USPubN 2007/0174336; hereinafter Day) in view of Bumgardner et al.(USPubN 2008/0276284; hereinafter Bumgardner) further in view of Barsness et al.(USPubN 2008/0115171; hereinafter Barsness) further in view of Dillon et al.(USPubN 2002/0056102; hereinafter Dillon) further in view of Daigle et al.(USPubN 2009/0178078; hereinafter Daigle).
As per claim 67, Day, Bumgardner, Barsness and Dillon teach all of limitation of claim 65.
Day, Bumgardner and Dillon are silent about wherein each of the added one or more alternative media assets to the second program listing includes a rain check icon and an alternative (ALT) icon.
Daigle teaches wherein each of the added one or more alternative media assets to the second program listing includes a rain check icon and an alternative (ALT) icon (Para.[0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention to modify the teachings Day, Bumgardner, Barsness and Dillon with the above teachings of Daigle in order to improve the ability of the individual viewer to select and automatically timeshift television programs while providing opportunities for a service provider to enhance and direct the viewing experience.
As per claim 77, the limitations in the claim 77 has been discussed in the rejection claim 67 and rejected under the same rationale.
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 SUNGHYOUN PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1333. The examiner can normally be reached M - Thur 6:00 am - 4 pm.
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 Q 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.
/SUNGHYOUN PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2484