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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendment filed on 11/6/25 has been entered. Claims 1, 10, 16 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 10, 16 being independent.
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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 6-10, 15-16, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, 18-20 of copending Application No. 18539730. Although, the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 10, 16 of the instant application are identical with the exception of the narrower claim limitations of "target content is associated with the media content being broadcast" and “modifying target content based on feedback from users” as claimed in copending application claims 1, 8, 15. Copending application has narrower claim limitations. Dependent claims 4, 11-14, 18-20 of copending applications are identical with the instant application claims 6-9, 15, 20.
The claimed invention in the instant application is fully disclosed in the copending application and it is broader than the claimed invention in the copending application No. 18539730. No new invention or new improvement is being claimed in the instant application. Applicant is now attempting to claim broadly that which had been previously described in more detail in the claims of the copending application (In re Van Ornum, 214 USPQ 761 CCPA 1982).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 6, 8-10, 15-16, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-8 of Patent No. 12225156 (“Patent ‘156”). Although, the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 10, 16 of the instant application are identical with the exception of the narrower claim limitations of "using a machine learning model to generate a prediction of a length of an idle instant" and “providing targeted content during the predicted length of an idle time” as claimed in Patent ‘156 claims 1, 6, 8. Patent ‘156 has narrower claim limitations. Dependent claims 3-4, 7-8 of copending applications are identical with the instant application claims 6, 8-9, 15, 20.
The claimed invention in the instant application is fully disclosed in the Patent’156 and it is broader than the claimed invention in the Patent ‘156. No new invention or new improvement is being claimed in the instant application. Applicant is now attempting to claim broadly that which had been previously described in more detail in the claims of the patent (In re Van Ornum, 214 USPQ 761 CCPA 1982).
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why Applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent.
Claims 1, 6, 8-10, 15-16, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-13 of copending Application No. 19046778. Although, the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 10, 16 of the instant application are identical with the exception of the narrower claim limitations of "target content is associated with the media content being broadcast" and “modifying target content based on feedback from users” as claimed in copending application claims 1, 6, 10. Copending application has narrower claim limitations. Dependent claims 2-4, 7-8, 11-13 of copending applications are identical with the instant application claims 6-9, 15, 20.
The claimed invention in the instant application is fully disclosed in the copending application and it is broader than the claimed invention in the copending application No. 19046778. No new invention or new improvement is being claimed in the instant application. Applicant is now attempting to claim broadly that which had been previously described in more detail in the claims of the copending application (In re Van Ornum, 214 USPQ 761 CCPA 1982).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-10, 13-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150237189 to Schultz et al. (“Schultz”).
As to claims 1, 10 and 16, Schultz discloses a method a method, an apparatus and a non-transitory computer storage medium comprising instructions for providing customized content to a user [Schultz Abstract, Figs. 1-26, pages 1-15], the method comprising: responsive to determining that a phone number for a digital call involving one of a mobile device or a user computing entity is one of a plurality of target phone numbers [Fig. 7, paragraph 0045, also see Figs. 13-18, paragraphs 0080-93], identifying, by one or more processors: one or more content control rules associated with the phone number [Figs. 13-18, paragraphs 0080-93], one or more actions to be carried out in accordance with the one or more content control rules, wherein at least one of the one or more actions involves providing the targeted content via a call companion interface available through the one of the mobile device or the user computing entity [Figs. 13-18, paragraphs 0080-93], one or more user preferences associated with the one of a mobile device or a user computing entity [Abstract, paragraphs 0064, 0083, 0089, Fig. 16], and one or more desired modifications to the targeted content corresponding to the one or more user preferences [Abstract, paragraphs 0064, 0083, 0089, Fig . 16]; modifying, by the one or more processors, the target content according to the one or more desired modifications [Abstract, paragraphs 0064, 0089-90, Fig. 16]; and while the digital call is connected for audio and/or video with the mobile device or the user computing entity, providing, by the one or more processors, the targeted content for display via the call companion interface available through the one of the mobile device or the user computing entity [Abstract : “The customized visual interface may include information that is potentially relevant to a user who has placed the call, and may be based on, for example, a user profile…”, see Fig. 13: 1320, 1325, paragraphs 0083-85, also see Fig. 16, paragraphs 0064, 0089-90 : “VI application 610 may determine the seating location of the user based on a user profile or user history (e.g., a ticket purchase history). VI application 610 may also determine that a seat upgrade is available…”, “user interface 1605 may include an option to purchase upgraded…”].
As to claims 4, 13 and 19, Schultz discloses wherein the one or more desired modifications comprise adding one or more content items from the targeted content specific to a location of a user of the one of a mobile device or a user computing entity [Fig. 16, paragraphs 0064, 0089: “FIG. 16 illustrates a series of user interfaces that may correspond to a visual interface, which is based on a user's location”].
As to claims 5 and 14, Schultz discloses wherein the one or more processors are executing on the one of the mobile device or the user computing entity [paragraphs 0132-0133, 0136, Fig. 26].
As to claims 6 and 15, Schultz discloses wherein the one or more processors are executing on a call management computing entity remote from the one of the mobile device or the user computing entity [Fig. 21, paragraphs 0101-103].
As to claim 7, Schultz discloses wherein the targeted content comprises a webpage, the call companion interface comprises a browser, and providing the targeted content for display via the call companion interface comprises: causing the browser resident on the one of the mobile device or the user computing entity to launch to a web address for the webpage [paragraphs 0095, 0098-100, Figs. 19, 20].
As to claim 8, Schultz discloses wherein the targeted content comprises application-enabled content, the call companion interface comprises an application resident on the one of the mobile device or the user computing entity, and providing the targeted content for display via the call companion interface comprises: providing the application-enabled content to the one of the mobile device or the user computing entity; and causing the application to launch to display the application-enabled content [Fig. 6: 610 “VI application”, Fig. 16-18, paragraphs 0039-42, 0089, 0092-93].
As to claim 9, Schultz discloses wherein providing the targeted content for display via the call companion interface comprises: providing a hyperlink through a communication channel that is selectable through the one of the mobile device or user computing entity to access the targeted content; and responsive to a selection of the hyperlink, causing the call companion interface to launch to display the targeted content [paragraphs 0084, 0094-0095, 0113, 125: “CVI server 2110 may provide the link to user device 505 based on notification preferences associated with user device 505 (e.g., may send the link via SMS, via an application-directed SMS message, via email, etc.) …”].
As to claim 20, Schultz discloses wherein one or more computer processors are executing on the one of the mobile device or the user computing entity [paragraphs 0132-0133, 0136, Fig. 26] or on a call management computing entity remote from the one of the mobile device or the user computing entity [Fig. 21, paragraphs 0101-103].
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 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 of this title, 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 2-3, 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150237189 to Schultz et al. (“Schultz”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180240023 to Ivanov et al. (“Ivanov”).
As to claims 2, 11 and 17, Schultz discloses the method of claim 1, the apparatus of claim 10 and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16 [See rejection of claims 1, 10, 16].
Schultz does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more desired modifications comprise removing one or more content items from the targeted content. Even though, Schultz clearly discloses different/customized visual interface with different information based on user preference/profile. Schultz discloses that when user dials ‘800-555-5555’, the user is presented with user interface [See figs. 13-18]. The user interface changes based on user preferences/profile. Schultz discloses that based on the location information and/or user profile different user interface is shown [See Fig. 16]. Fig. 15 displays “upcoming events near you” content. Fig. 16 shows option to “seat upgrade” content on visual interface based on the user profile and the location. It is extremely obvious that Fig. 16 display interface shows targeted content with one or more items removed from Fig. 15.
In the same or similar field of invention, Ivanov clearly discloses feature of removing one or more content items from the targeted content [Ivanov paragraphs 0103-0106, 0113, 0116].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Schultz to have feature of removing one or more content items from the targeted content as taught by Ivanov. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide improved relevancy and quality of targeted content presented to a user [Ivanov paragraph 0013].
As to claims 3, 12 and 18, Ivanov discloses wherein the one or more desired modifications comprise removing one or more content items from the targeted content based on an age of a user of the one of a mobile device or a user computing entity being below a threshold age [Ivanov paragraph 0106]. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claims 2, 11 and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of applicant’s remark, the applicant argues the following (with respect to non-statutory double patenting rejections):
“Applicant’ submits that the amendments to the claims overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejections”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's arguments for the following reasons: The amendment to the claims do not overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejections. Claim amendment recite new limitation of “while the digital call is connected for audio and/or video with the mobile device or the user computing entity….”. This is not enough to make conflicting claims patentably distinct from each other. For example, copending application 19046778 recites “allowing the digital call to be established…” and later “provide the targeted content for display… “ (e.g. provide the targeted content while the digital call is still connected). Similarly patent ‘156 also recite similar features (“allowing the digital call to be established…”, “provide the targeted content for display...”). Thus, the non-statutory double patenting rejections are maintained.
On pages 8-9 of applicant’s remark, the applicant argues the following (with respect to prior art rejection of independent claims 1, 10 and 16):
“Schultz does not disclose, teach, or suggest at least "while the digital call is connected for audio and/or video with the mobile device or the user computing entity, providing, via the one or more processors, the targeted content for display via the call companion interface available through the one of the mobile device or the user computing entity." In Schultz, if the visual interface is provided, the call is blocked.”
“As is shown above, if the visual interface is provided in Schultz, the call is blocked. However, the independent claims as amended recite "while the digital call is connected for audio and/or video with the mobile device or the user computing entity, providing, via the one or more processors, the targeted content for display via the call companion interface available through the one of the mobile device or the user computing entity." “
“At least these concepts are not disclosed or suggested by Schultz. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that independent Claims 1, 10, and 16 as amended are not anticipated and therefore requests that the rejection of these claims be withdrawn”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's arguments for the following reasons: Fig. 13-16 of Schultz clearly disclose newly added feature of “while the digital call is connected for audio and/or video with the mobile device or the user computing entity, providing, via the one or more processors, the targeted content for display via the call companion interface available through the one of the mobile device or the user computing entity”. As per Schultz, when the user selects “speak to an agent” option, user interface displayed “on hold” content based on the user’s selections in the previous screens [Fig. 13: 1320, paragraph 0083]. When “on hold”, user is still connected for audio and/or video with the his/her device. In addition, user interface 1325 is presented when the agent is joined the call. The user may user the seating chart while speaking to the agent, in order to select a seat [Fig. 13: 1325, paragraphs 0084-85]. Therefore, Schultz clearly discloses newly added feature of “while the digital call is connected for audio and/or video with the mobile device or the user computing entity, providing, via the one or more processors, the targeted content for display via the call companion interface available through the one of the mobile device or the user computing entity”. Thus, Schultz discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170265065 to Meriaz et al. (Figs. 8-10 and corresponding paragraphs).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170330557 to Pattan et al. (Figs. 2-4 and corresponding paragraphs).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANTIM G SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-5214. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANTIM G SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693