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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to application No. 18/532,513 filed on 01/28/2026. Claim(s) 1 is/are canceled. Claim(s) 2-21 is/are pending and have been examined. is/are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/28/2026 has been entered.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,882,322 in view of Sole et al. (US 2016/0192114). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar subject matter which is obvious over one another.
For example, note the following relationship between the instant application claim and patented application claims.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claims 1, 10, and 17 of patented application except that pending application in claims 2, 9, and 16 contains additional limitation “obtaining an indication, via the storage device, that indicates that the third segment is stored in the storage device; and in response to obtaining the indication, providing”
In an analogous art, Sole teaches “obtaining an indication, via the storage device, that indicates that the third segment is stored in the storage device; and in response to obtaining the indication, providing” (Paragraph 0068, 0070-0071). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system to include obtaining an indication, via the storage device, that indicates that the third segment is stored in the storage device; and in response to obtaining the indication, providing, as taught by Sole, for the advantage of allowing the device to playback content when available, providing user with continued consumption of desired content.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 17, and 19 of patented application.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claims 3, 12, and 19 of patented application.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claim 5 of patented application.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claims 7 and 14 of patented application.
Claims 7, 14, and 21 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claim 6 of patented application.
Claims 8 and 15 of the instant application corresponds to that of Claims 8 and 15 of patented application.
Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kadiyala et al. discloses detecting availability of segment(s), and in response to a detection that segment(s) are available, extracting available segment(s) in (US 2019/0149862).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON K LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1446. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached on 571-272-7527. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JASON K LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights