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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10, and 17 have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1, 6, 10, and 17 are amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 7, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “processing a set of observation data corresponding to indications of detected receiver operations associated with the content receiver”. This limitation does not appear to be necessary because the same limitation already appears in claim 1.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the Examiner recommends to replace “a set of observation data” in line 3 with “a second set of observation data” and replace “the set of observation data” in line 5 with “the second set of observation data” to improve form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 recites “processing a set of observation data corresponding to indications of detected receiver operations associated with the content receiver; and based at least in part on the set of observation data, identifying the one or more content alternatives”. These limitations are recited in claim 10 from which claim 15 depends. Therefore, claim 15 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 10. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martch et al. (US 2016/0191913) in view of Delaney et al. (US 2021/0092024).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 17, Martch teaches: A system to facilitate continuation of content services in an event of signal loss [(abstract, Fig. 1)], the system comprising:
one or more processing devices [processors 1410 (Fig. 1-4 and 14)] and
memory communicatively coupled with, and readable by, the one or more processing devices and having stored therein processor-readable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to perform operations [a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 1425 storing executable instructions (par. 146 and Fig. 14)] comprising:
detecting a set of one or more electronic communications received via one or more interfaces [receiving and processing signal strength data from receivers and may also receive data related to the programming viewing habits of the user, weather forecast information, and other network status information (par. 99, Fig. 4)]
detecting, from the set of one or more electronic communications, an indication of a potential signal loss at a content receiver at a future time [the disruption predictor may determine what receivers or what geographic areas are likely to experience additional disruptions in signal (par. 26, 90, 99-102, and 117-118, Fig. 4 and 6)]
responsive to receiving a trigger indicative of the potential signal loss, causing the content receiver to pre-configure to respond to a signal loss before the signal loss disrupts presentation of content by the content receiver [receiving notifications, alerts, and data regarding possible future signal disruptions (par. 21-22, Fig. 4). A receiver may receive data or notifications about planned or potential programming stream disruptions and the receiver may be configured to prioritize the programming streams that are identified as potentially being affected by a weather event or other disruption and monitor them more frequently (par. 109, 111, and 129, Fig. 5 and 11)]
processing a set of observation data corresponding to indications of detected receiver operations associated with the content receiver; based at least in part on the set of observation data, identifying one or more content alternatives [generating a list of suggested programs based on user viewing preferences, user profile, viewing habits, and/or the like (par. 21-26, 60, 94, and 121)] and
causing the content receiver to configure to respond to the signal loss when the signal loss disrupts causing presentation of content by the content receiver at least in part by causing presentation of one or more user-selectable interface elements corresponding to the one or more content alternatives [when there is a disruption to the satellite signal, a notification may be provided including alternative programming that is available to the user and a link to the alternative programming stream (par. 21-22, 26, 94-95, 104, 110, 112-113, and 121, Fig. 1, 3, 5, and 7)] and
consequent to a selection of at least one user-selectable interface element of the one or more user-selectable interface elements: the content receiver obtains at least part of at least one of the one or more content alternatives, and the content receiver outputs for presentation the at least part of the at least one of the one or more content alternatives [programming suggestions may include a channel number or a link to an alternative programming stream (par. 113). the system may tune to the alternative programming stream if the user accepts the alternative program, and displaying the tuned stream on a television (par. 40-42, and 120, Fig. 1)].
Martch does not explicitly disclose: the processing the set of observation data is before the signal loss disrupts presentation of content by the content receiver.
Delaney teaches: the processing the set of observation data is before the signal loss disrupts presentation of content by the content receiver [Determining a period of time when there will be no network connection. In advance of the loss of network connection, the device may access may access an electronic history of past instances of content presentation or viewing at the device and/or by the user, and determine other content to recommend (par. 71-72, Fig. 4)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Martch and Delaney before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Martch by incorporating the teaching of Delaney such that the processing the set of observation data is before the signal loss disrupts presentation of content by the content receiver to yield predictable results of determining recommended content in advance of any loss of the signal or network connection (Delaney – par. 72). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Martch and Delaney to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 18, Martch and Delaney teach the system of claim 1; Martch further teaches: the detecting the indication of the potential signal loss is based at least in part on forecasted weather conditions for a location corresponding to the content receiver [programming outage may be anticipated based on local weather forecasts (par. 26 and 99, Fig. 4)].
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Martch and Delaney teach the system of claim 1; Martch further teaches: the potential signal loss corresponds to a potential loss of a satellite signal at the content receiver [satellite signal obstruction due to weather may cause disruption of satellite signal (par. 21 and 23)].
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Martch and Delaney teach the system of claim 1; Martch further teaches: the detecting comprises: obtaining weather data from the set of one or more electronic communications, and determining the potential signal loss based at least in part on analyzing the weather data for one or more locations and mapping the one or more locations to the content receiver [receiving weather forecast information and the weather data and disruption predictions may be geographically tagged or labeled to allow receivers to process data relevant to their specific geographic locations. Data of the receivers may be coupled or associated with the geographic location of the receivers (par. 86-87 and 99-100, Fig. 4)].
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Martch and Delaney teach the system of claim 1; Martch further teaches: the detecting comprises: obtaining outage data for a plurality of content receivers from the set of one or more electronic communications, and determining the potential signal loss based at least in part on analyzing the outage data for one or more locations and mapping the one or more locations to the content receiver [receiving and analyzing signal strength data from receivers and generating disruption predictions that may be geographically tagged or labeled to allow receivers to process data relevant to their specific geographic locations. the disruption predictor may determine what receivers or what geographic areas are likely to experience additional disruptions. Data of the receivers may be coupled or associated with the geographic location of the receivers (par. 26 and 99-102, Fig. 4)].
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Martch and Delaney teach the system of claim 1; Delaney further teaches: the operations further comprising: processing a set of observation data corresponding to indications of detected receiver operations associated with the content receiver; and applying machine learning to the observation data to identify the one or more content alternatives based on data from prior receiver operations and present receiver operations [determining content the user has observed in the past and using machine learning to infer content the user would likely want to observe in the future during the loss of network connection (par. 25, 56, 72, and 77)].
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Martch and Delaney teach the system of claim 1; Martch and Delaney further teach: the operations further comprising: processing a set of observation data corresponding to indications of detected receiver operations associated with a plurality of content receivers; and based at least in part on the set of observation data, identifying the one or more content alternatives [Martch - monitor viewing habits and/or statistics of users and determining important or popular programming streams (par. 60, 94, 104). Delaney - access an electronic history of past instances of content presentation or viewing at the device and/or by the user and determining content that is trending among the general population (par. 72)].
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Martch and Delaney teach the system of claim 1; Martch further teaches: the system comprises the content receiver, and the content receiver comprises the one or more processing devices [the system comprises Television receiver 150 including processors 210 (par. 49, Fig. 1 and 2)].
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Martch and Delaney teach the system of claim 1; Martch and Delaney further teach: the one or more processing devices correspond to a server system that is separate and remote from the content receiver [Martch – television service provider system 110 remote from the television receiver 150 and including processor(s) (Fig. 1 and 14). Delaney – a server 214 that may execute the logic (par. 60, Fig. 2)].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Boyd whose telephone number is (571)270-0676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm PST.
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.
/ALEXANDER BOYD/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights