DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Status
Claim 1 is canceled.
Claim 2, and 12 are amended.
No newly added claims.
Claims 2-21 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the amendment filed on 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Reasons are set forth below.
Applicant argues (Remarks Page 6-7), Liao in view of Robbins fails to teach or render obvious "comparing to rendering capabilities of a user device, wherein the user device is prevented from upstream communication by an operational condition" and "storing the identifier that characterizes rendering capabilities of the user.”
In response the examiner respectfully points out that, Liao in par. 0050 and various other paragraphs teaches that the STB receives a demanded media stream over the unidirectional HFC broadcast network. Therefore, devices in Liao does not have capabilities for upstream communication because nature of content deliver being unidirectional.
Liao was modified with teachings from Robbins to teach the feature of receiving device capabilities, stored identifier of user devices that associated with format capabilities and comparing rendering capabilities of the user device. Robbins in Par. 0033 discloses, The media playback devices 110 may be categorized based on acceptable formats or best fit formats. The display device database 104 may include subscriber-specific parameters of the media playback devices 110 and parameters regarding the overall household or business environment that includes the media playback devices 110. Par. 0036, The databases, 104, 106 may operate to store multiple media playback device identifiers, where each media playback device identifier is associated with a format and/or a channel. The databases may be locally accessible or remotely accessible, such as via cloud storage. i.e. storing media playback device identifier located in user household.
Hence, combination of Liao and Robbins teaches for delivering media in optimal format of media playback device based on device capabilities (See Robbins, par. 0001-0002). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues (Remarks page 7), Liao and Robbins, either alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest an operation in which the control device receives and stores rendering capability identifiers for later use when the user device is necessarily prevented from upstream communication by an operational condition. Also, it would not have been obvious to POSITA, again, having reasonably interpreted the present amended claims in light of the present specification, to necessarily modify Liao and Robbins to achieve the claimed features without hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended purpose and principle of operation of the references in a hypothetical combination of reference teachings.* The references address different problems in different contexts and do not teach or suggest the claimed invention
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 2 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory non-obviousness type double patenting over claims 1 of U.S. Patent, US 10225597. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim same subject matter.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application’s claims 1 and 12 is fully disclosed in claims 1 of US Patent, US 10225597 claiming the same common subject matter, the claims are merely broader than patented claim 1 of U.S. Patent, US 10225597 and therefore they are obvious variants of claims 1 of U.S. Patent, US 10225597.
Instant Application 18/537,416
U.S. Patent, US 10225597
Claim 2 and 12 maps to
Claim 1
Allowance of application claim 2 and 12 would result in an unjustified time-wise extension of the monopoly granted for the invention defined by claim 1 of U.S. Patent, US 10225597. Therefore, non-statutory non-obviousness type double patenting is appropriate.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory non-obviousness type double patenting over claims 1 of U.S. Patent, US 11395028. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim same subject matter.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application’s claims 2 and 12 is fully disclosed in claims 1 of US Patent, US 11395028 claiming the same common subject matter, the claims are merely broader than patented claim 1 of U.S. Patent, US 11395028 and therefore they are obvious variants of claims 1 of U.S. Patent, US 11395028.
Instant Application 18/537,416
U.S. Patent, US 11395028
Claim 2 and 12 maps to
Claim 1
Allowance of application claim 2 and 12 would result in an unjustified time-wise extension of the monopoly granted for the invention defined by claim 1 of U.S. Patent, US 11395028. Therefore, non-statutory non-obviousness type double patenting is appropriate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-5, 8-17, and 19-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 20110010741, part of Information Disclosure Statement filed on 12/12/2023), in view of Robbins (US 20140038514).
Regarding claim 2, Liao discloses, a method for verifying, using a control device, that at least one media asset is suitable for consumption, the method comprising:
transmitting a command from the control device to cause a distribution server to commence distribution of the at least one media asset for viewing (Par. 0026, 0059-0062, fig. 2 and 3 discloses mobile terminal browsing the VOD system and controlling (i.e. initiating) on-demand control for video service from VOD system to be directed (i.e. in order to initiate video service) to STB users, i.e. mobile terminal or requesting terminal uses sending command to VOD system (i.e. distributing video) to initiate viewing of content on STB device);;
receiving, at the control device, tuning information corresponding to the at least one media asset from the distribution server (Par. 0063-0069 discloses terminal device receiving programming guide from VOD system, i.e. programming guide comprising channel information therefore tuning information);
wherein the user device is prevented from upstream communication by an operational condition (Par. 0050, the STB receives a demanded media stream over the unidirectional HFC broadcast network).
Liao does not disclose, receiving, at the control device, an identifier that characterizes rendering capabilities;
storing the identifier that characterizes rendering capabilities of the user device;
comparing, using the control device, the identifier to the tuning information; and
determining, based on the comparing and using the control device, that at least one element of the tuning information corresponds to the identifier.
Robbins discloses, receiving, at the control device, an identifier that characterizes rendering capabilities of a user device (Par. 0042, Multiple devices (i.e., 1-n number of devices) may be requesting media content initially or as part of an ongoing request. The tablet PC may include with the request information regarding the device's resolution capabilities, the tablet PC may provide information identifying its brand/model, i.e. receiving capability identifier from plurality of playback devices 110);
storing the identifier that characterizes rendering capabilities of the user device (Par. 0033, The media playback devices 110 may be categorized based on acceptable formats or best fit formats. The display device database 104 may include subscriber-specific parameters of the media playback devices 110 and parameters regarding the overall household or business environment that includes the media playback devices 110. Par. 0036, The databases, 104, 106 may operate to store multiple media playback device identifiers, where each media playback device identifier is associated with a format and/or a channel. The databases may be locally accessible or remotely accessible, such as via cloud storage. i.e. storing media playback device identifier located in user household);
comparing, using the control device, the identifier to the tuning information (par. 0049, a media content format selected from the comparison of the resolution capabilities of the target device 110 to a plurality of media content formats); and
determining, based on the comparing and using the control device, that at least one element of the tuning information corresponds to the identifier (par. 0049, a media content format selected from the comparison of the resolution capabilities of the target device 110 to a plurality of media content formats, i.e. comparison of resolution capabilities element to channel source determines which channel to tune to).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify teaching of Liao with teaching of receiving at the control device an identifier that characterizes rendering capabilities, storing the identifier that characterizes rendering capabilities of the user device, comparing using the control device the identifier to the tuning information, and determining based on the comparing and using the control device that at least one element of the tuning information corresponds to the identifier, as taught by Robbins, for delivering media in optimal format media playback device based on device capabilities (See Robbins, par. 0001-0002).
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 2,
Liao further discloses, wherein the command is transmitted based on actuation of a logical address conveyed in an information container (Par. 0072, user clicks a URL (i.e. logical address) or on-demand button on the page. The URL or button is directed to a service program entry for processing the on-demand request by the VOD system).
Regarding claim 4, the method of claim 2,
Liao further discloses, wherein the tuning information is received by the control device in response to the distribution server commencing distribution of the at least one media asset based on the command (Par. 0080, fig. 6A and 6B, while watching the demanded program, user can fast forward the program through the handset device, i.e. once the VOD system commence the media asset on STB device based on command to from handheld device, handheld device receive tunning information in order to control fast forward action through handheld device).
Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 2,
Liao further discloses, wherein the tuning information comprises metadata that includes one or more of a content identifier, a stream identifier, or content rendering criteria (Par. 0071, user finds out the program (i.e. content identifier) to be demanded by browsing the program guide).
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 2,
Liao in view of Robbins further discloses, wherein the identifier comprises data indicative of formatting capabilities of an end user device (Robbins Par. 0042, The tablet PC may include with the request information regarding the device's resolution capabilities. For example, the information regarding resolution capabilities may be in the form of metadata. In another example, the tablet PC may provide information identifying its brand/model. The media content delivery system 100 may use information provided or otherwise retrieved to identify the resolution capabilities of the target device 110).
Regarding claim 9, the method of claim 8,
Liao further discloses, wherein the formatting capabilities define types of media assets that the end user device is configured to render for user perception (Par. 0031, the media manager 104 may not transmit the first channel or the second channel available in a particular format to the media rendering device 108 that does not support that particular format. For example, the media manager 104 may receive details regarding the rendering capabilities of the headphones 108b. Hence, the media manager 104 may not transmit a TV program (comprising video data only) to the headphones 108b, i.e. based on formatting capabilities of rendering device, it is determined which type of media assets that rendering device is configured to output for user, such as for example video display vs audio headphones).
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 2,
Liao in view of Robbins further discloses, wherein the tuning information is first tuning information and the identifier is a first identifier (Robbins Par. 0022, a tuner 112 may tune to a desired channel for receiving media content 103a from the media content source 102. Par, 0042, Multiple devices (i.e., 1-n number of devices) may be requesting media content initially or as part of an ongoing request. The tablet PC may include with the request information regarding the device's resolution capabilities, the tablet PC may provide information identifying its brand/model. Par. 0049, media content delivery system tunes to a format selected from the comparison of the resolution capabilities of the target device to a plurality of media content formats. 110, i.e. media content delivery system tune to desired channel from media content source = first turning information is being received by control device, plurality of playback devices 110 = first and second identifiers received from different playback devices), the method further comprising:
receiving, at the control device, second tuning information corresponding to at least one other media asset from the distribution sever (Robbins Par. 0022, a tuner 112 may tune to a desired channel for receiving media content 103a from the media content source 102. Par. 0049, media content delivery system tunes to a format selected from the comparison of the resolution capabilities of the target device to a plurality of media content formats. 110, i.e. media content delivery system tune to desired channel from media content source = first and second turning information is being received by control device);
receiving, at the control device, a second identifier that characterizes alternative rendering capabilities (Robbins par. 0042, Multiple devices (i.e., 1-n number of devices) may be requesting media content initially or as part of an ongoing request. The tablet PC may include with the request information regarding the device's resolution capabilities, the tablet PC may provide information identifying its brand/model, i.e. receiving capability identifier from plurality of playback devices 110 = first and second identifiers received from different playback devices);
comparing, using the control device, the second identifier to the second tuning information and the first tuning information (par. 0049, a media content format selected from the comparison of the resolution capabilities of the target device 110 to a plurality of media content formats); and
determining, based on the comparing, that at least one element of either the first tuning information or the second tuning information corresponds to the second identifier (par. 0049, a media content format selected from the comparison of the resolution capabilities of the target device 110 to a plurality of media content formats).
Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 2,
Liao further discloses, wherein:
the command is transmitted responsive to an input received at the control device (Par. 0064-0066, user selects an on-demand button or link provided on the page to initiate an on-demand request to the VOD system); and
the input comprises one or more of a gesture, a selection of an element on an interface, or a user interaction leading to the control device converting the user interaction into a data structure for generating the command (Par. 0064-0066, user selects an on-demand button or link provided on the page to initiate an on-demand request to the VOD system).
Regarding claim 12, Liao in view of Robbins meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, Liao in view of Robbins meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, Liao meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, Liao meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, Liao meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, Liao meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, the method of claim 12,
Liao in view of Robbins further discloses, wherein the identifier comprises data indicative of formatting capabilities of an end user device (Robbins Par. 0042, the information regarding resolution capabilities may be in the form of metadata. In another example, the tablet PC may provide information identifying its brand/model. The media content delivery system 100 may use information provided or otherwise retrieved to identify the resolution capabilities of the target device 110).
Regarding claim 20, the method of claim 19,
Liao in view of Robbins further discloses, wherein the formatting capabilities define types of media assets that the end user device is configured to render for user perception (Robbins Par. 0042, the information regarding resolution capabilities may be in the form of metadata. In another example, the tablet PC may provide information identifying its brand/model. The media content delivery system 100 may use information provided or otherwise retrieved to identify the resolution capabilities of the target device 110, i.e. resolution capabilities = user perception).
.
Regarding claim 21, Liao meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 10.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 20110010741), in view of Robbins (US 20140038514), in further view of Oyman et al. (US 20140219088).
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 5,
Liao in view of Robbins does not disclose, wherein the content rendering criteria comprise one or more of a data structure indicative of a version of the at least one media asset or a data structure indicative of whether one or more alternative versions of the at least one media asset is available via a distribution server.
Oyman discloses, wherein the content rendering criteria comprise one or more of a data structure indicative of a version of the at least one media asset or a data structure indicative of whether one or more alternative versions of the at least one media asset is available via a distribution server (Par. 0042, the client may open one or several or many TCP connections to one or several standard HTTP servers or caches, retrieve the MPD metadata file providing information on the structure and different versions of the media content stored in the server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify teaching of Liao in view of Robbins with teaching of the content rendering criteria comprise a data structure indicative of a version of the at least one media asset indicative of whether one or more alternative versions of the at least one media asset is available via a distribution server, as taught by Oyman, for optimizing QoE for multimedia content service (See Oyman, par. 0005).
Regarding claim 18, Liao in view of Robbins in further view of Oyman meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 6.
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 20110010741), in view of Robbins (US 20140038514), in further view of Addington et al. (US 20070074240, part of Information Discloser Statement filed on 12/12/2023).
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 2,
Liao in view of Robbins does not disclose, wherein the tuning information comprises an introductory message.
Addington discloses, wherein the tuning information comprises an introductory message (Par. 0253, the ESS could instruct the host to tune to a certain channel that has a welcome message (e.g., a greeting/system overview channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify teaching of Liao in view of Robbins with teaching of wherein the tuning information comprises an introductory message, as taught by Addington, to confirm the services provisioned as well as provides the user with information regarding using the service (See Oyman, par. 0253).
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 AKSHAY DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, JOHN W MILLER can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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.
/A.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/JOHN W MILLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422