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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8,18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waller (2013/0019265) in view of Hunsaker (US 2022/0201367) in view of Gupta (US 11,743,548).
Regarding claim 1, 11, Waller discloses A method comprising:
receiving, at a computing device and via a carousel of a unidirectional stream, an application identifier ([0034, 0035, 0037] DVB stream includes carousels and an AIT);
receiving, via the carousel, content associated with an application identified by the application identifier ([0047,0048] the broadcast stream contains content along with the AIT which contains the application identifier);
identifying that the application is installed at the computing device ([0036,0037] installed applications are verified before requesting from the portal);
Waller does not specifically disclose storing the received content at a memory associated with the computing device.
However, Hunsaker discloses storing the received content at a memory associated with the computing device ({0039, 0042] content and videos can be downloaded to the device). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the content downloading of Hunsaker into the system of Waller in order to allow users to quickly view content without any consideration to bandwidth/transmission limitations.
Waller in view of Hunsaker does not specifically disclose outputting a notification associated with the application; receiving an input associated with the notification; and generating for output, via the application, the received content.
However, Gupta discloses outputting a notification associated with the application; receiving an input associated with the notification; and generating for output, via the application, the received content (fig. 28-29, col. 43 lines 23-65, claim 3 user is notified of a content and is able to select the program to view). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the notification of Gupta into the system of Waller in view of Hunsaker in order to inform viewers of recommended available content.
Regarding claim 2, 12, Waller discloses receiving, at the computing device, broadcast content via the unidirectional stream; and wherein the application identifier identifies an application associated with the broadcast content (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, 13, Waller discloses identifying that the application identified by the application identifier is not installed at the computing device; receiving data for installing the application; and installing, via the received data and at the computing device, the application ([0036, 0037]).
Regarding claim 4, 14, Gupta discloses outputting the notification; and wherein outputting the notification associated with the application further comprises outputting the notification in response to identifying that the trigger has occurred (fig. 28-29, claim 3).
Claim(s) 5, 7, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waller (2013/0019265) in view of Hunsaker (US 2022/0201367) in view of Gupta (US 11,743,548) in view of Pattison (US 2022/0321958).
Regarding claim 5, 15, Waller in view of Hunsaker in view of Gupta does not specifically disclose identifying a start time for tuning the computing device to the unidirectional stream; identifying that a current time corresponds to the start time; and tuning the computing device to the unidirectional stream.
However, Pattison discloses disclose identifying a start time for tuning the computing device to the unidirectional stream; identifying that a current time corresponds to the start time; and tuning the computing device to the unidirectional stream ([046]). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the time detection and tuning of Pattison into the system of Waller in view of Hunsaker in view of Gupta in order to automatically tune to a preferred program upon its start time.
Regarding claim 7, 17, Pattison discloses wherein the carousel is a first carousel, and the unidirectional stream is a first unidirectional stream; the method further comprising: receiving the first carousel and the first unidirectional stream via a first tuner of the computing device; and receiving, at a second tuner of the computing device, broadcast content via a second unidirectional stream ([0046]).
Claim(s) 6, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waller (2013/0019265) in view of Hunsaker (US 2022/0201367) in view of Gupta (US 11,743,548) in view of Yamaguchi (US 2012/0141093).
Regarding claim 6, 16, Waller in view of Hunsaker in view of Gupta does not specifically disclose wherein the content is first content, and storing the received first content at the memory further comprises storing the received first content to a first content file; and the method further comprising: receiving, at the computing device and via the carousel, a discontinuity indicator flag; receiving, via the carousel, second content associated with the application; and storing the received second content at the memory associated with the computing device.
However, Yamaguchi discloses wherein the content is first content, and storing the received first content at the memory further comprises storing the received first content to a first content file; and the method further comprising: receiving, at the computing device and via the carousel, a discontinuity indicator flag; receiving, via the carousel, second content associated with the application; and storing the received second content at the memory associated with the computing device ([0162, 0257]). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the discontinuity flag of Yamaguchi into the system of Waller in view of Hunsaker in view of Gupta in order to indicate to the system when to switch content.
Claim(s) 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waller (2013/0019265) in view of Hunsaker (US 2022/0201367) in view of Gupta (US 11,743,548) in view of Baikov (US 2023/0325125).
Regarding claim 9, 19, Waller in view of Hunsaker in view of Gupta does not specifically disclose identifying, for each of a plurality of applications installed at the computing device, a popularity associated with each installed application; and assigning, to each of the plurality of installed applications, a portion of the memory associated with the computing device, wherein a size of each of the assigned portions is based on the popularity of a respective application.
However, Baikov discloses identifying, for each of a plurality of applications installed at the computing device, popularity associated with each installed application; and assigning, to each of the plurality of installed applications, a portion of the memory associated with the computing device, wherein a size of each of the assigned portions is based on the popularity of a respective application ([0083]). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the storage allocation of Baikov into the system of Walker in view of Hunsaker in view of Gupta in order to improve storage efficiency by allocating less space for less used apps.
Claim(s) 10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waller (2013/0019265) in view of Hunsaker (US 2022/0201367) in view of Gupta (US 11,743,548) in view of Klappert (US 2013/0031579).
Regarding claim 10, 20, Waller in view of Hunsaker in view of Gupta does not specifically disclose wherein the received content comprises first content and second content, wherein the first content comprises an advertisement, and the second content does not comprise an advertisement; the method further comprises identifying that a threshold amount of advertisement supported broadcast content has been consumed at the computing device; and generating the received content for output further comprises generating the second content for output and not the first content, based on the identification that the threshold amount of advertisement supported broadcast content has been consumed at the computing device.
However, Klappert discloses wherein the received content comprises first content and second content, wherein the first content comprises an advertisement, and the second content does not comprise an advertisement; the method further comprises identifying that a threshold amount of advertisement supported broadcast content has been consumed at the computing device; and generating the received content for output further comprises generating the second content for output and not the first content, based on the identification that the threshold amount of advertisement supported broadcast content has been consumed at the computing device ([0168]). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the threshold advertisement of Klappert into the system of Waller in view of Hunsaker in view of Gupta in order to enforce advertisement viewing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL HYUN HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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.
/MICHAEL H HONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426