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 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 07/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claims 1 ,9, 17 and 19 have been amended. The Double Patenting rejection is maintained until indicating allowable subject matter.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,843,839.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitlinger (US 2016/0373794) in view of Flanagan (US 2019/0230395).
Regarding claim 1, Heitlinger discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by the streaming service executing on a computer system comprising one or more computing devices from a client device that is separate from the streaming service, a request for authorization to stream a program, the request for authorization comprising client device metadata (receiving by a streaming server, a request for a content stream from an end user device, the request includes the end user device identifiers; see at least paragraphs 0023 and 0027);
determining, by the streaming service based on the first client device metadata and blackout metadata associated with the program, that the client device is not authorized to stream the program (determining, by the server, if blackout rules associated with the device identifier applies wherein content providers create blackout configuration to define blackout rules and a schedule for when the rules apply to their content streams; see at least paragraphs 0027-0029 and 0035-0036); and
sending, by the streaming service to the client device, slate information that identifies a slate image to be presented by the client device in lieu of the program (the server enforces blackout rules and alters the content stream and send URL that can be used to retrieve alternate content in place of blocked out content, wherein the alternate content can be any of a moving slate, a blacked out screen, error message, other live or linear streaming assed or some other video on-demand asset; see at least paragraph 0030).
Heitlinger discloses the streaming service, but is not clear bout the slate image is not streamed to the client device.
Flanagan discloses similar invention and discloses that that alternative content may be accessed via a packet switched protocol or a non-packet switched protocol, such as a quadrature amplitude modulation based protocol; see at least paragraphs 0043 and 0067.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Heitlinger by the teachings of Flanagan by having the above limitations so to be able to manage blackout restrictions; see at least the Abstract.
Regarding claim 2, Heitlinger in view of Flanagan disclose the method of claim 1 further comprising:
prior to receiving the request for authorization, receiving, by the streaming service from the client device, an initial request for authorization to stream the program, the initial request for authorization comprising the client device metadata (the claim does not distinguish between the two requests, therefore, they can be interpreted to be subsequent requests for a content stream using the same process as explained in the rejection of claim 1);
determining, by the streaming service based on the client device metadata and the blackout metadata associated with the program, that the client device is authorized to stream the program (Heitlinger; if the rules don’t apply; see at least Fig. 2); and
sending, by the streaming service to the client device, information that indicates that the client device is authorized to stream the program (Heitlinger; passing the requested content to requesting end user device unchanged; see at least Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Heitlinger in view of Flanagan disclose the method of claim 2 further comprising:
subsequent to the initial request for authorization to stream the program and prior to the request for authorization to stream the program, receiving, by the stream service, updated blackout metadata associated with the program, the updated blackout metadata comprising information that indicates that the client device is not authorized to stream the program (Heitlinger; content providers can create and modify blackout rules and schedule for when to enforce the rules; see at least paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 4, Heitlinger in view of Flanagan disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the slate image comprises a single static bitmapped graphic image (Heitlinger; a moving slate, a blacked out screen, error message, other live or linear streaming assed or some other video on-demand asset; see at least paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 5, Heitlinger in view of Flanagan disclose the method of claim 2 further comprising:
subsequent to receiving the request for authorization to stream the program, receiving, by the streaming service, updated blackout metadata associated with the program (Heitlinger; content providers can create and modify blackout rules and schedule for when to enforce the rules; see at least paragraph 0037);
receiving, by the streaming service from the client device, a subsequent request for authorization to stream the program, the subsequent request comprising the client device metadata (see at least the rejection of claim 1);
determining, based on the client device metadata and the updated blackout metadata associated with the program, that the client device is authorized to stream the program (see at least the rejection of claim 1); and
sending, by the streaming service to the client device, information that indicates that the client device is authorized to stream the program (see at least the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 6, Heitlinger in view of Flanagan disclose the method of claim 1 wherein the client device metadata comprises device location information of a geographic location of the client device, and wherein determining, based on the client device metadata and the blackout metadata associated with the program, that the client device is not authorized to stream the program comprises determining that the geographic location of the client device is identified in the blackout metadata as a geographic location in which the program is not authorized to be streamed (Heitlinger; see at least paragraphs 0027-0028 and 0050).
Regarding claim 7, Heitlinger in view of Flanagan disclose the method of claim 1 wherein the client device metadata comprises a device type of the client device, and wherein determining, based on the client device metadata and the blackout metadata associated with the program, that the client device is not authorized to stream the program comprises determining that the device type is identified in the blackout metadata as a device type to which the program is not authorized to be streamed (Heitlinger; see at least paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 8, Heitlinger in view of Flanagan disclose the method of claim 1 further comprising:
receiving, by the streaming service, the blackout metadata that indicates that the program is restricted (see at least the rejection of claim 1); and
updating a manifest associated with the program to include a restriction marker based on the blackout metadata (Heitlinger; content providers can create and modify blackout rules and schedule for when to enforce the rules; see at least paragraph 0037).
Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claims 1 and 3.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 ET.
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 on 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.
/YASSIN ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights