DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 11, 17, 22, 24-32, 34-46 are pending.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 17, 25-27, 31-32, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane et al. (US 2016/0192034) in view of MS et al. (US 2019/0028872), and further in view of Wohlert et al. (US 2015/0120293).
Claim 1, 11, Yamane teaches a digital television apparatus comprising:
at least one processor system comprising one or more processors and programmed with instructions to (p. 0027):
receive a first advanced emergency alert (AEA) at an advanced television systems committee (ATSC) 3.0 receiver (i.e. emergency alert information) (p. 0024, 0059);
“responsive receipt of the first AEA at the ATSC 3.0 receiver (300), power on the television (706) to present the first AEA at the television” (i.e. boot up triggered in response to emergency alert) (p. 0097-0098); and
“the television including the ATSC 3.0 receiver” (300) (p. 0097-0098)
responsive to the television being powered on, present the first AEA at the television (i.e. display on display unit 706) (p. 0098)
Yamane is silent regarding a digital television apparatus comprising:
identifying a particular user;
accessing plural network sites to identify data associated with the particular user, the data indicating one or more accessibility issues the particular user has;
determining whether to present the first AEA at the device based on the data.
“responsive to determining to present the first AEA at the television based on the data”.
MS teaches a digital television apparatus comprising:
identifying a particular user (i.e. user profile) (p. 0073);
“identify data associated with the particular user (i.e. user profile information), the data indicating one or more accessibility issues the particular user has” (i.e. optional alerts according to profile) (p. 0076, 0080);
determining whether to present the first AEA at the device based on the data (i.e. optional alerts according to profile) (p. 0076, 0080);
“responsive to determining to present the first AEA at the television (i.e. pop-up menu of emergency broadcast) based on the data” (i.e. determining to present on TV or short range device) (p. 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided user profiles as taught by MS to the system of Yamane to allow for custom alerts (p. 0076).
Wohlert teaches a digital television apparatus comprising:
“accessing plural network sites to identify data associated with the particular user” (i.e. server 110 facilitates analysis of profiles through use of storage devise 910 and access tools 920) (p. 0052)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a server to facilitate as taught by Wohlert to the system of Yamane to provide access to profiles are the server level (p. 0052).
Claim 17 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 1.
Claim 25, Yamane teaches the apparatus of Claim 11, wherein the device comprises a television that includes the digital television receiver (300) (p. 0054).
Claim 26, Yamane teaches the apparatus of Claim 11, wherein the device comprises a first television that is different from a second television that includes the digital television receiver (i.e. one or more television sets) (p. 0054).
Claim 27, The apparatus of Claim 11, wherein the device comprises a display that is different from a television that includes the digital television receiver (i.e. one or more television sets) (p. 0054).
Claim 30, Yamane teaches the apparatus of Claim 11, wherein the first AEA is indicated in an A/331 Advanced Emergency Alert Table (AEAT) (fig. 5; p. 0072).
Claim 31, Yamane teaches the apparatus of Claim 30, wherein an AEA type associated with the first AEA is indicated in an EventCode field of the AEAT (i.e. alert_ID (fig. 4A-5; p. 0072).
Claim 32, Yamane teaches the apparatus of Claim 30, wherein an AEA type associated with the first AEA is indicated in an Audience field of the AEAT (i.e. alert_ID (fig. 4A-5; p. 0072).
Claim 34, Yamane is silent regarding the apparatus of Claim 11, wherein the instructions are executable to use a username of the particular user to identify the particular user.
MS teaches the apparatus of Claim 11, wherein the instructions are executable to use a username (i.e. user profile) of the particular user to identify the particular user. (p. 0076, 0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided user profiles as taught by MS to the system of Yamane to allow for custom alerts (p. 0076)
Claim(s) 22, 24, 28, 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane et al. (US 2016/0192034) in view of MS et al. (US 2019/0028872), and further in view of Wohlert et al. (US 2015/0120293), and further in view of Jorasch et al. (US 2021/0400142).
Claim 22, 24, 35, Yamane is silent regarding the method of Claim 17, comprising:
executing biometric identification to identify the particular user.
Jorasch teaches the method of Claim 17, comprising:
executing biometric identification to identify the particular user (p. 0192, 0212, 0922).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided biometric analysis as taught by Jorasch to the system of Yamane to provide user recognition (p. 0192).
Claim 28, Yamane is silent regarding the apparatus of Claim 11, wherein the device comprises a radio.
Jorasch teaches the apparatus of Claim 11, wherein the device comprises a radio (i.e. alerted on a radio) (p. 2788).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided radio alerts as taught by Jorasch to the system of Yamane to alert students in a classroom (p. 2788).
Claim 36, Yamane is silent The apparatus of Claim 35, wherein the biometric identification comprises voice recognition.
Jorasch teaches The apparatus of Claim 35, wherein the biometric identification comprises voice recognition (p. 0192, 0212, 0922).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided biometric analysis as taught by Jorasch to the system of Yamane to provide user recognition (p. 0192).
Claim 37, Yamane is silent The apparatus of Claim 35, wherein the biometric identification comprises face recognition.
Jorasch teaches The apparatus of Claim 35, wherein the biometric identification comprises voice recognition (p. 0192, 0212, 0922).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided biometric analysis as taught by Jorasch to the system of Yamane to provide user recognition (p. 0192).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane et al. (US 2016/0192034) in view of MS et al. (US 2019/0028872), and further in view of Wohlert et al. (US 2015/0120293), and further in view of NG et al. (US 2021/0289268).
Claim 29, Yamane is silent regarding the apparatus of Claim 11, wherein the device is a companion device that communicates with the ATSC 3.0 receiver via an ATSC A/338 communication protocol.
NG teaches the apparatus of Claim 11, wherein the device is a companion device that communicates with the ATSC 3.0 receiver via an ATSC A/338 communication protocol (i.e. receive alerts on companion device) (p. 0105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided receiving alerts on a companion device as taught by NG to the system of Yamane to provide alerts to the users mobile device (p. 0105).
Claim(s) 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane et al. (US 2016/0192034) in view of MS et al. (US 2019/0028872), and further in view of Wohlert et al. (US 2015/0120293), and further in view of Nachtrab et al. (US 9544430).
Claims 38-40, Yamane is silent regarding the digital television apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the plural network sites are accessed to identify the data additionally or alternatively to receiving input from the user indicating the one or more accessibility issues the user has.
Wohlert teaches the specific feature of “plural network sites are accessed to identify the data” (i.e. server 110 facilitates analysis of profiles through use of storage devise 910 and access tools 920) (p. 0052)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a server to facilitate as taught by Wohlert to the system of Yamane to provide access to profiles are the server level (p. 0052).
Nachtrab teaches the specific feature of:
“identify the data additionally or alternatively to receiving input from the user indicating the one or more accessibility issues the user has” (i.e. automatically detects user impairment based no user ID of portable device) (col. 10, lines 5-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide detection of impaired user as taught by Nachtrab to the system of Yamane to provide automatic switching of streams for impaired users (col. 10, lines 5-26).
Claim(s) 41-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane et al. (US 2016/0192034) in view of MS et al. (US 2019/0028872), and further in view of Wohlert et al. (US 2015/0120293), and further in view of Xiao et al. (US 2019/0130038).
Claim 41, 43 Yamane is silent regarding The digital television apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor system is programmed with instructions to:
crawl the plural network sites to identify the data.
Xiao teaches The digital television apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor system is programmed with instructions to:
crawl the plural network sites to identify the data (i.e. crawl media sites) (p. 0005, 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide crawling sites as atrught by Xiam to the system of Yamane to provide interaction data of users (p. 0028).
Claim 42, 44 Yamane teaches the specific feature of:
“a first AEA” (i.e. emergency alert information) (p. 0024, 0059).
Yamane is silent regarding The digital television apparatus of Claim 41, wherein the at least one processor system is programmed with instructions to:
generate a user profile based on that data identified via the crawl of the plural network sites; and
determine whether to present the content at the television based on the data as indicated in the user profile.
Xiao teaches The digital television apparatus of Claim 41, wherein the at least one processor system is programmed with instructions to:
generate a user profile based on that data identified via the crawl of the plural network sites (p. 0028); and
determine whether to present the content at the television based on the data as indicated in the user profile (i.e. determine what personalized news to recommend) (p. 0028-0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide crawling sites as taught by Xiam to the system of Yamane to provide interaction data of users (p. 0028).
Claim 45 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 41.
Claim 46 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 42.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1, Applicant argues that Initially, note that the proffered motivation is allegedly to "provide access to profiles are [sic] the server level." However, paragraph 52 provides no reason that its server has the capability that it has, at best only stating that the server "can" access profiles and adjust multimedia content. This paragraph therefore fails to provide to any legitimate motivating factor that would lead to the skilled artisan to the specific combination of references being proposed. Indeed, any additional motivation that is superimposed on the actual disclosure of paragraph 52 itself appears to be rooted in improper hindsight reconstruction meriting reversal of the rejections.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and that of the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself; "[an application] claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result", KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)). The claims refer to “accessing plural network sites to identify data…”. It is clear that Wohlert teaches user profiles at the server level, and utilizing this data is an advantage provided to Yamane and MS to provide identity data of users. Therefore, according to KSR, this is a proper combination.
Claims 30-32, Applicant argues that Without necessarily acquiescing in these rejections, Applicant requests written claim constructions be placed on the record for what precisely from the relied-upon portions of Yamane - Figures 4A-5 and paragraph 72 - are being read as disclosing an A/331 Advanced Emergency Alert Table (AEAT) per Claim 30, an EventCode field of the AEAT per Claim 31, and an Audience field of the AEAT per Claim 32. This is because, again, "Claim construction must be explicit, at least as to any construction disputed by parties." Gechter V. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In response:
The EAS message of fig. 5 is interpreted as the AEAT. The message also contains a table_id field for identifying the table it belongs to. Furthermore, according to 35 USC 112, second paragraph. The claims contain the trademark/trade name “audience field” and “eventcode field”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe “audience field” and “eventcode field and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Therefore, Yamane’s alert_id performs the intended functions of the present applications’ “audience field” and “eventcode field.
Claim 29, Applicant argues that After conceding that nothing from the other references disclose the foregoing, reliance is placed on NG's paragraph 105. However, that paragraph fails to mention ATSC A/338 in any capacity. It doesn't even mention ATSC. Accordingly, a clear mistake of fact appears to have been committed as to the alleged teachings of the relied-upon portion of NG, meriting reversal of this rejection for this additional reason.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 105 of NG clearly discloses “a companion device may be configured to receive data, including emergency alert information”. Furthermore, NG discloses the use of the ATSC 3.0 suite of standards all throughout the reference and specifically on p. 0099-0103).
Claims 38-40, Applicant argues that As may be appreciated from the foregoing, while the rejections allege that this section discloses "automatically detect[ing] user impairment based on user ID of portable device," the relied-upon portion of col. 10 actually indicates, at best, that the user ID might be carried in the header of a VoIP data packet. But that's not what the claims recite. The claims recite receiving input from the user that has the one or more accessibility issues.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite, “wherein the plural network sites are accessed to identify the data additionally or alternatively to receiving input from the user indicating the one or more accessibility issues the user has. One of ordinary skill in the art would interpreted this to mean that the accessibility data is NOT received EXPLICITLTLY from the user. If the data is an addition or alternative to receiving. It is either being received by the user as additional data, or it is being received alternatively than from the user. Therefore, Nachtrab receiving accessilbity data from the header is not explicitly from the user and is an alterantive “to receiving input from the user”.
Furthermore, Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and that of the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself; "[an application] claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result", KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)). Nachtrab provides the additional advantage of stream switching for impaired users to the system of Yamane, MS, and Wohlert. Therefore, according to KSR, this is a proper combination.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 11, 17, 22, 24-32, 34-46 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220309361 A1 Chow; Chih-Hsiang et al.
US 11308538 B1 Pineau; Frédérique
US 20200133967 A1 Shukla; Anand et al.
US 20190171707 A1 RAPAPORT; Orly
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSHFIKH I ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1710. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00PM-9:00PM.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
MUSHFIKH I. ALAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2426
/MUSHFIKH I ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 4/23/2026
Prosecution Insights