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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks, pg. 8, filed 7/8/2026, regarding the status of the claims is herein acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, 14, and 21 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-14, 16-18, and 21-23 are pending in the present application.
Applicant's Remarks, pg. 8-9, filed 7/8/2026, regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are hereby acknowledged. The examiner notes that the applicant’s arguments are directed to newly amended limitations not previously presented. Therefore, the examiner will set forth a new grounds of rejection in order to take into consideration the new limitations.
With respect to the newly amended limitations, the applicant argues that the combination of Pawson, Glasgow, Yang, and DVB Document A177 (of record) do not render the limitations obvious and argues, inter alia, the following:
Even when considered together, Pawson, Glasgow, Yang, and DVB-Rev. 3 do not teach or suggest the claimed relationship between the customization parameter and the selection of custom service list data. Pawson and Glasgow use user-identifying information to provide personalized content or services, Yang concerns targeted delivery of broadcast services or media components, and DVB-Rev. 3 provides general query and filtering mechanisms. The cited teachings do not describe a query parameter that indicates that service list data customized for a user, a group of users, or a user profile is requested and that is also used as the basis for selecting such custom service list data from service list data stored in a database. Nor does the Office Action articulate
why a person of ordinary skill would have configured the cited mechanisms to provide that claimed relationship. Accordingly, claim 1 is not rendered obvious by the cited combination.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, in response to the applicant’s arguments, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). More importantly, on the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court stated that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 96 S. Ct. 1532, 47 L. Ed. 2d 784 (1976)). The Court further reiterated that in circumstances where the combination of two pre-existing elements did no more than they would in separate, sequential operation, the patent failed under 35 U.S.C. 103. See id. at 416-417 (citing Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 90 S. Ct. 305, 24 L. Ed. 2d 258 (1969)). The analysis of a rejection on obviousness grounds need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. See id. at 418. The obvious analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation. Id. at 419. Further, the Court stated that common sense teaches, however, that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. See id. at 420.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner notes that the applicant’s arguments regarding the newly amended limitations to the independent claims do not appear to take into consideration the prior art of record to DVB Service Discovery and Programme Metadata for DVB-I, DVB Document A177 Rev. 3, January 2022 (hereinafter DVB Document A177). The examiner notes that with respect to the newly amended limitations, DVB Document A177 pg. 13-14 Section 4.1 and pg. 35 section 5.2.7.1 to 5.2.7.4 discloses query message requesting service list data comprises parameters for delivering service list personalized to a user’s request. See also DVB Document A177 section 5.6.3.2 teaches utilizing a client device unique address such as an IP address to determine DVB-I Service List Server. See also DVB Document A177 Section 5.2.2 and 6.3 and 6.5.2.2 disclosing utilizing global unique identifiers including requests for schedule by service ID. DVB Document A177 Section 5.1.3.2 pg. 18, Section 6.2.2 pg. 71 discloses a DVB-I Service List Registry in a URL format allows a provider to enable service list discovery wherein the search string comprises key/value pairs; all query parameters provided in requests to service list server or content guide shall use the character set comprising key/value pairs.
DVB Document A177 dovetails with the teachings of Pawson. Even whereas Pawson does not use the term “parameter” or “service list data”, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “parameter” as something represented by a parameter : a characteristic element, Pawson’s disclosure reads on disclosing a parameter. See Pawson col. 4:7-67 to col. 6:1-47 teaches a particular user device sends a request for media assets and also teaches that information identifying the particular user is available in the request wherein each user has a specific identifier to enable Pawson’s invention to delivery personalized media content to the requesting user. Furthermore, Glasgow Fig. 4-6, para 72-85 teaches transmitting a list of currently available broadcast content and or recorded programming, electronic program guides based on the user device transmitting user identifying information to a remote server in order to delivery personalized user specific content. Wherein Glasgow does not use the term “parameter”, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that Glasgow utilizes a parameter of the user identifier for delivering personalized user specific media services. See e.g., Fig. 5B element 510 to element 540 and para 76-82.
Lastly, but equally important, Yang discloses the use of query parameters wherein Yang discloses transmitting a request for service list data a wherein Yang para 1296 states “A broadcast transmission device may transmit a broadcast service or a media component, which targets on users having a specific condition. Additionally, the broadcast reception device 100 may transmit information on a user of the broadcast reception device 100 and may receive a broadcast service or a media component proper for a user of the broadcast reception device 100.” See also Yang para 1123-1124, 1128 and para 202-203, 887, 907-913, 1036-1038 disclosing providing a query request for data related to the media content comprising service list data. Furthermore, with respect to a querying parameter, Yang para 1296-1311, 1527 teaches services provided based on a user request comprises a component for targeting/personalization properties representing a device that a component targets or user’s characteristics. As such, Yang teaches delivering targeted/personalized media services to the user broadcast reception device (i.e., broadcast reception device 100) wherein the user broadcast reception device transmits information on a user of the user broadcast reception device 100 and may receive a broadcast service or a media component proper for a user of the broadcast reception device 100. A reasonable inference drawn by a person of ordinary skill in the art would be that the user broadcast reception device transmits information on the user (i.e., identifying parameters) as part of a request for tailored media services in order to receive media services tailored to the user’s identifying parameters. Stated differently, Yang’s user broadcast reception device would not need to send user information to a broadcast transmission device in order to receive the same media services that all users receive unless the media services are tailored/personalized as disclosed in Yang. The examiner notes that Pawson and Glasgow similarly teach that the user device only transmits the user identifier in order to receive media services tailored to the user identifier. See citations to Pawson and Glasgow above including Pawson col. 4:7-67 to col. 6:1-47 and Glasgow Fig. 4-6.
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of the new limitations are not persuasive in view of the prior art of record. All things considered, the examiner will set forth a new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-14, 16-18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawson; David J. US 6944585 B1 (hereafter Pawson) and in further view of Glasgow; Jay O. et al. US 20070214470 A1 (hereafter Glasgow) and in further view of Yang; Seungryul et al. US 20180115796 A1 (hereafter Yang) and in further view of DVB Service Discovery and Programme Metadata for DVB-I, DVB Document A177 Rev. 3, January 2022 (hereinafter DVB Document A177).
Regarding claim 1, “a method for delivering multimedia data to a user device of a multimedia data delivery system, the method comprising, at a server device of the multimedia data delivery system; receiving, from the user device, a query message requesting service list data, wherein the query message includes a parameter for querying custom service list data in relation to a user of the user device; and in response to receiving the query message, generating a response message that includes a list of multimedia services customized for the user based on the parameter, for transmission to the user device, wherein the parameter is a customization parameter that indicates that the query message requests custom service list data customized for the user of the user device, for a group of users to which the user belongs, or for a user profile used by the user, and wherein generating the response message comprises selecting, among service list data stored in a database, the custom service list data according to a selection criterion based on the customization parameter” Pawson col 3:9-18, 52-67 to col. 6:1-22 teaches clients transmit request and content resolver transmits information identifying both the content of the digital media content stream and the requesting user to server 110 wherein information identifying the particular user is available in the request to enable the resolver to generate the user identifier; see also Pawson col. 4:8-38 causing element 130 to transmit customized digital media stream to the requesting user. Pawson col. 3:9-18 states that queries include requests for information about which audio-visual data streams are currently available for service. Regarding the “the query message includes a parameter for querying custom service list data in relation to a user of the user device” Pawson col. 4:7-67 to col. 6:1-47 teaches a particular user device sends a request for media assets and also teaches that information identifying the particular user is available in the request wherein each user has a specific identifier to enable Pawson’s invention to delivery personalized media content to the requesting user.
Whereas Pawson does not use the term “service list data”, in analogous art Glasgow teaches the deficiency of Pawson (see Fig. 4-6, para 72-85 transmitting a list of currently available broadcast and or recorded programming, electronic program guides based on the user device transmitting user identifying information to a remote server in order to delivery personalized user specific content ). Wherein Glasgow does not use the term “parameter”, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that Glasgow utilizes a parameter of the user identifier for delivering personalized user specific media services. See e.g., Fig. 5B element 510 to element 540 and para 76-82.
In an analogous art, Yang discloses the use of query parameters wherein Yang discloses transmitting a request for service list data a wherein Yang para 1296 states “A broadcast transmission device may transmit a broadcast service or a media component, which targets on users having a specific condition. Additionally, the broadcast reception device 100 may transmit information on a user of the broadcast reception device 100 and may receive a broadcast service or a media component proper for a user of the broadcast reception device 100.” See also Yang para 1123-1124, 1128 and para 202-203, 887, 907-913, 1036-1038 disclosing providing a query request for data related to the media content comprising service list data. Furthermore, with respect to a querying parameter, Yang para 1296-1311, 1527 teaches services provided based on a user request comprises a component for targeting/personalization properties representing a device that a component targets or user’s characteristics. As such, Yang teaches delivering targeted/personalized media services to the user broadcast reception device (i.e., broadcast reception device 100) wherein the user broadcast reception device transmits information on a user of the user broadcast reception device 100 and may receive a broadcast service or a media component proper for a user of the broadcast reception device 100. A reasonable inference drawn by a person of ordinary skill in the art would be that the user broadcast reception device transmits information on the user (i.e., identifying parameters) as part of a request for tailored media services in order to receive media services tailored to the user’s identifying parameters. Stated differently, Yang’s user broadcast reception device would not need to send user information to a broadcast transmission device in order to receive the same media services that all users receive unless the media services are tailored/personalized as disclosed in Yang. The examiner notes that Pawson and Glasgow similarly teach that the user device only transmits the user identifier in order to receive media services tailored to the user identifier. See citations to Pawson and Glasgow above including Pawson col. 4:7-67 to col. 6:1-47 and Glasgow Fig. 4-6.
In an analogous art, DVB Document A177 pg. 13-14 Section 4.1 and pg. 35 section 5.2.7.1 to 5.2.7.4 describing query message requesting service list data comprises parameters for delivering service list personalized to a user’s request. See also DVB Document A177 section 5.6.3.2 teaches utilizing a client device unique address such as an IP address to determine DVB-I Service List Server. See also DVB Document A177 Section 5.2.2 and 6.3 and 6.5.2.2 disclosing utilizing global unique identifiers including requests for schedule by service ID. DVB Document A177 Section 5.1.3.2 pg. 18, Section 6.2.2 pg. 71 discloses a DVB-I Service List Registry in a URL format allows a provider to enable service list discovery wherein the search string comprises key/value pairs; all query parameters provided in requests to service list server or content guide shall use the character set comprising key/value pairs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pawson’s invention comprising transmitting client requests and information identifying both the content of the digital media content stream and a parameter identifying user information for transmitting tailored media services based on the user request by further incorporating known elements of Glasgow for transmitting a list of currently available broadcast content and associated data based on the user device transmitting user identifying information to a remote media services server because Yang recognizes utilizing a user device query request for data related to the media content services comprising service list data wherein the user device transmits user information to a broadcast transmission device to enable the identification of media services that match user identifying parameters in order to target users having a specific condition matching media identifiers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pawson, Glasgow, and Yang for transmitting client requests and information identifying both the content of the digital media content stream and the requesting user to a server wherein information identifying the particular user is available in the request to enable the transmission of customized digital media stream to the requesting user by further incorporating known elements of DVB Document A177 for transmitting a list of currently available broadcast content services and associated data based on the user device transmitting user query requests comprising parameters to a remote server and a DVB-I Service List Registry which enables the remote servers to deliver media services because the prior art recognizes the benefit of utilizing a user query request for media content data comprising service list data wherein the query includes parameters used to filter services and media data that will be delivered to the requesting user and provided targeted/tailored/and personalized services to the requesting user.
Regarding claim 2, “further comprising: transmitting, to the user device, the response message” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 wherein Pawson col 3:52-67 to col. 6:1-22 teaches clients transmit request and content resolver transmits information identifying both the content of the digital media content stream and the requesting user to server 110 wherein information identifying the particular user is available in the request to enable the resolver to generate the user identifier; see also Pawson col. 4:8-38 causing element 130 to transmit customized digital media stream to the requesting user. See also Glasgow Fig. 4-6, para 72-85 transmitting a list of currently available broadcast and or recorded programming, electronic program guides based on the user device transmitting user identifying information to a remote server.
Regarding the method claims 3-4, the claims are grouped and rejected with the method claims 1-2 because the steps of the method claims are met by the disclosure of the apparatus and methods of the reference(s) as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-2 and because the steps of the method are easily converted into elements of computer implemented methods by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, “wherein the parameter includes an identifier related to the user device” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-4 wherein Yang discloses transmitting a request for service list data a wherein Yang identifies the user related to the user device wherein para 1296 states “A broadcast transmission device may transmit a broadcast service or a media component, which targets on users having a specific condition. Additionally, the broadcast reception device 100 may transmit information on a user of the broadcast reception device 100 and may receive a broadcast service or a media component proper for a user of the broadcast reception device 100.” See also Yang para 1123-1124, 1128 and para 202-203, 887, 907-913, 1036-1038 disclosing providing a query request for data related to the media content comprising service list data.
Regarding claim 6, “wherein the parameter includes a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID)” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-5 wherein Yang para 998, 1047, 1069 teaches utilizing a uuid for transmitted data. Whereas Yang does not use the same terminology as the claimed limitation, in an analogous art, DVB Document A177 pg. 60 teaches query parameters comprise unique addresses. See also DVB Document A177 section 5.6.3.2 teaches utilizing a client device unique address such as an IP address to determine DVB-I Service List Server. See also DVB Document A177 Section 5.2.2 and 6.3 and 6.5.2.2 disclosing utilizing global unique identifiers including requests for schedule by service ID.
Regarding claim 7, “wherein the parameter includes a group identifier” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-5 wherein Yang para 248, 697 teaches utilizing a group identifier for transmitted data.
Regarding claim 8, “wherein the parameter includes a user device identifier” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-5, 7 wherein Yang discloses transmitting a request for service list data a wherein Yang identifies the user related to the user device wherein para 1296 states “A broadcast transmission device may transmit a broadcast service or a media component, which targets on users having a specific condition. Additionally, the broadcast reception device 100 may transmit information on a user of the broadcast reception device 100 and may receive a broadcast service or a media component proper for a user of the broadcast reception device 100.” See also Yang para 1123-1124, 1128 and para 202-203, 887, 907-913, 1036-1038 disclosing providing a query request for data related to the media content comprising service list data.
Regarding claim 9, “wherein the parameter includes a user profile identifier” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-8 wherein Pawson Fig. 2 and col. 4:8-30; col. 5:22-67 to col. 6:1-47. See also Glasgow para 67 and 92.
Regarding claim 10, “wherein the multimedia data delivery system includes a Digital Video Broadcasting – Internet, DVB-I, system, and the query message is a DVB-I Service List Discovery Query message to query from a DVB-I Service List Registry function a personalized list of Service List Entry Points, or a DVB-I Service List Query message to query from a DVB-I Service List Server a personalized Service List” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-9 wherein Yang further teaches data corresponds to DVB. See also DVB Service Discovery and Programme Metadata for DVB-I, DVB Document A177 Rev. 3, January 2022 wherein the Examiner takes Official Notice that DVB as disclosed in Yang comprises the elements of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, “wherein the user device implements a Digital Video Broadcasting – Internet, DVB-I, client, and the query message is a DVB-I query” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-10 wherein Yang further teaches data corresponds to DVB. See also DVB Service Discovery and Programme Metadata for DVB-I, DVB Document A177 Rev. 3, January 2022 wherein the Examiner takes Official Notice that DVB as disclosed in Yang comprises the elements of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, “wherein the query message is a DVB-I Service List Query or Service List Discovery Query” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-11 wherein Yang further teaches data corresponds to DVB. See also DVB Service Discovery and Programme Metadata for DVB-I, DVB Document A177 Rev. 3, January 2022 Section 5.3-5.3.2 disclosing Service List Discovery query.
Regarding claim 13, “wherein the server device implements a Digital Video Broadcasting – Internet, DVB-I, Service List Registry, SLR, function or a DVB-I Service List Server, SLS, function, and the response message is a response message to a DVB-I Service List Discovery Query issued by a DVB-I client to the SLR function, or a response message to a DVB-I Service List Query issued by the DVB-I client to the SLS function” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-12 wherein Yang further teaches data corresponds to DVB. See also DVB Service Discovery and Programme Metadata for DVB-I, DVB Document A177 Rev. 3, January 2022 Section 5.3-5.3.2 disclosing Service List Discovery query; See also Section 5.1.3.2 and 5.6.3.1 disclosing Service List Registry SLR and Service List Server.
Regarding the apparatus claims 14, 16 and the non-transitory claims 21-22 the claims are grouped and rejected with the method claims 1-5 and 7-9 because the steps of the method claims are met by the disclosure of the apparatus and methods of the reference(s) as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-2 and because the steps of the method are easily converted into elements of computer implemented methods by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the apparatus claims 17-18 and the non-transitory claim 23 the claims are grouped and rejected with the method claims 1-14, 16 because the steps of the method claims are met by the disclosure of the apparatus and methods of the reference(s) as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-14, 16 and because the steps of the method are easily converted into elements of an apparatus and non-transitory computer readable claims by one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 ALFONSO CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3950. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10am to 6pm.
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. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALFONSO CASTRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights