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 arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, limitations of independent claims 1,8,15 and support in Applicant's specification could not be found for the feature (includes an unsynchronized command configured to control a dispersed transmission site to mix the local media content with the sequence of media items, and wherein at a time the control signal is received at the first distribution site, the unsynchronized command is unsynchronized with the local media content; and transmitting the local media content and the control signal including the unsynchronized command). To overcome this rejection, Applicant should point out to specific portions of the specification that provide the written description for the feature).
The dependent claims 2-7,9-14,16-20 are rejected because they depended on the rejected base claims 1,8,15.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of patent 10,986,147. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of instant application is anticipated by the above cited patent(see Independent Claims Comparison Table below).
Instant Application 18/506,077
Patent 10,986,147
Claim 1:
A method comprising: obtaining, at a first distribution site, a sequence of media items; receiving, at the first distribution site, local media content transmitted by a second distribution site, wherein the local media content is to be inserted into the sequence of media items; receiving a control signal transmitted to the first distribution site by the second distribution site, wherein the control signal includes an unsynchronized command configured to control a dispersed transmission site to mix the local media content with the sequence of media items, and wherein at a time the control signal is received at the first distribution site, the unsynchronized command is unsynchronized with the local media content; and transmitting the local media content and the control signal including the unsynchronized command from the first distribution site to one or more dispersed transmission sites.
Claim 1:
A method comprising: pre-distributing a common sequence of media items to storage devices at a plurality of dispersed locations; obtaining, at a first media mixer located at a first dispersed location, a local program component, wherein the local program component includes media content not included in the common sequence of media items; obtaining a control signal at a first processing device co-located with the first media mixer at the first dispersed location, wherein the control signal is associated with playout of the common sequence of media items; transmitting the local program component from the first media mixer located at the first dispersed location to a second media mixer at a second dispersed location; separately transmitting the control signal from the first processing device, co-located with the first media mixer at the first dispersed location, to a second processing device, co-located with the second media mixer located at the second dispersed location; at the second dispersed location, synchronizing the control signal to the local program component to generate a synchronized media program control; at the second media mixer located at the second dispersed location: obtaining at least a portion of the common sequence of media items; obtaining the local program component; obtaining the synchronized media program control; and mixing the local program component and the at least a portion of the common sequence of media items in accordance with the synchronized media program control.
Instant claims 2-20 corresponds to conflicting claim 2-20 of patent 10,986,147.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1,3-5,7-8,10-12,14-15,17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thevanthasan et al (us 2010/0017820) (hereinafter Thevan) in view of Hirsch et al (us 2016/0316240) (hereinafter Hirsch).
As regarding claim 1, Thevan discloses obtaining, at a first distribution site, a sequence of media items (see Thevan 0026,0035, content to be broadcast to remote clients); receiving, at the first distribution site, local media content transmitted by a second distribution site, wherein the local media content is to be inserted into the sequence of media items (see Thevan 0042, 0044,0046, receive the supplement content by the content server by the sporting venue); receiving a control signal transmitted to the first distribution site by the second distribution site, wherein the control signal controls playout of the local media content in relation to the sequence of media items (see Thevan 0044,0046, the instruction is received by the sporting venue from content server).
Thevan is silent in regard to the concept of an unsynchronized command configured to control a dispersed transmission site to mix the local media content with the sequence of media items, and wherein at a time the control signal is received at the first distribution site, the unsynchronized command is unsynchronized with the local media content; and transmitting the local media content and the control signal including the unsynchronized command from the first distribution site to one or more dispersed transmission sites.
Hirsch teaches the concept of an unsynchronized command configured to control a dispersed transmission site to mix the local media content with the sequence of media items, and wherein at a time the control signal is received at the first distribution site, the unsynchronized command is unsynchronized with the local media content; and transmitting the local media content and the control signal including the unsynchronized command from the first distribution site to one or more dispersed transmission sites (see Hirsch 0116,0120, distribution gateway receives an advertisement schedule and forward the advertising schedule via the advertising insertion instruction to CPE, Hirsch 0051,0053, teaches the concept of the distribution gateway receives advertisement and media from archive gateway and transmit ads and media to CPE; CPE receives advertising insertion instruction to insert the advertisement into the multimedia content (see Hirsch 0122)).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hirsch to Thevan because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Thevan with Hirsch’s teaching for the purpose of efficiently allowing the remote sites/CPE to tailor the content as needed.
As regarding claim 3, Thevan-Hirsch discloses the control signal controls playout synchronization of the local media content relative to the sequence of media items (see Thevan 0044, the supplement content is inserted into the broadcast content as indicated by the instruction).
As regarding claim 4, Thevan-Hirsch discloses transmitting the sequence of media items to the one or more dispersed transmission sites (see Hirsch 0053, distribution gateway sends advertisement and media to CPE). the same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 4.
As regarding claim 5, Thevan-Hirsch discloses receiving a plurality of control signals related to a plurality of local media content items and aggregating the plurality of control signals prior to transmitting the plurality of control signals from the first distribution site to the one or more dispersed transmission sites (see Hirsch 0116,0120, distribution gateway receives an advertisement schedules and forward the advertising schedule via the advertising insertion instruction/s to CPE, Hirsch 0051,0053, teaches the concept of the distribution gateway receives advertisement and media from archive gateway and transmit ads and media to CPE; CPE receives advertising insertion instruction to insert the advertisement into the multimedia content (see Hirsch 0122)), it is obvious that the instructions are bundle together to transmit to the client since it will save the transmitting resources instead of transmitting one by one). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 5.
As regarding claim 7, Thevan-Hirsch discloses the control signal includes a surface control signal (see Thevan 0048, the instruction to rotate).
As regarding claims 8,10-12,14-15,17-19, the limitations of claims 8,10-12,14-15,17-19 are similar to limitations of rejected claims 1,3-5,7 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 2,9,16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thevan-Hirsch as applied to claims 1,8,15 above and further in view of Nagaraj et al (us 2014/0032987) (hereinafter Naga).
As regarding claim 2, the combination of Thevan-Hirsch discloses the invention as claims in claim 1 above, Thevan-Hirsch discloses the concept of provide content to first site (see Thevan 0042) and one or more disperse sites (see Hirsch 0053, CPE/s), however Thevan-Hirsch silent in regard to the concept of the sequence of media items has been pre-distributed.
Naga teaches the concept of the sequence of media items has been pre-distributed (see Naga 0027, pre-stored content on the device).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Naga to Thevan-Hirsch because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Thevan-Hirsch with Naga’s teaching for the purpose of improve user experience by efficiently allowing faster load time and reduce latency.
As regarding claims 9,16, the limitations of claims 9,16 are similar to limitations of rejected claim 2 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 6,13,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thevan-Hirsch as applied to claims 1,8,15 above and further in view of Thielen et al (us 2020/0029118) (hereinafter Thielen).
As regarding claim 6, the combination of Thevan-Hirsch discloses the invention as claims in claim 1 above, however Thevan-Hirsch is silent in regard to the concept of the control signal indicates a volume level adjustment to be applied to at least one of the sequence of media items or the local media content.
Thielen teches the concept of the control signal indicates a volume level adjustment to be applied to at least one of the sequence of media items or the local media content (see Thielen 0078, volume adjusted instruction).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Thielen to Thevan-Hirsch because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Thevan-Hirsch with Thielen’s teaching for the purpose of improve user experience by enhance listening experience.
As regarding claims 13,20, the limitations of claims 13,20 are similar to limitations of rejected claim 2 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale. Further Thevan discloses claim 20, the control signal includes a surface control signal (see Thevan 0048, the instruction to rotate).
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 DUYEN MY DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4226. The examiner can normally be reached (571)272-4226.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571)272-4170. 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.
/DUYEN M DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights