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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Oswal or Craner fail to teach categorizing user-variable content into “delayable and non-delayable categories”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Oswal teaches in Figure 6 and Page 23, Line 25 through Page 25, Line 5 for the user-variable content being scenes contained within the main video content and as the Examiner has indicated the scenes are categorized by a parent or guardian (see Page 23, Lines 28-30) by allowing the parent or guardian to view content that has been categorized into different types of objectionable scenes (see Page 23, Line 30 through Page 24, Line 3). The Examiner further notes Figure 4 and Page 22, Line 24 through Page 23, Line 14 for a further example of how the objectionable scenes are mapped according to a classification process using a viewer’s profile.
Applicant further argues that Oswal fails to disclose scheduling, “in accordance with the delayable and non-delayable content categories of user variable content, playback of the plurality of media streams comprising the main content and the user-variable content”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Page 23, Line 25 through Page 25, Line 20 and Figures 6-7 for displaying the video content with objectionable scenes to a parent or guardian replaced for other users with AR glasses and allowing the parent to decide which scenes are to be replaced. Therefore, the parent or guardian schedules playback of accepted content scenes in the main video content as well as rejected scenes that can be replaced with different scenes.
Applicant further argues playback, in accordance with the schedule, the plurality of media streams comprising the main content and the user-variable content to the plurality of users, wherein the non-delayable content is rendered to the respective users in real-time, and “the delayable content is sequentially rendered to the respective suers according to priority”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated in the previous Office Action, Oswal in Figure 8, Figure 10 and Page 26, Lines 6-18 for displaying the video content with objectionable scenes in an unmodified manner (non-delayable) and a modified manner (delayable), however Oswal fails to teach that the delayable/objectionable e replacement content is sequentially rendered to the respective users according to priority (Oswal does not teach the order of display according to a priority). Craner has been applied to teach sequentially rendering delayable/objectional replacement content to the respective users according to priority (see Column 4, Lines 8-20 for displaying a list of assets to the user in order of relevance or similarity to the requested locked content that the user recently attempted to access and further note Column 4, Lines 21-36 for rendering the content for display to the user in the order of the dictated by the parent’s permission).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-12 and 14, 16-17, 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oswal et al. (WO 2017/103004) in view of Craner (U.S. Patent No. 8,079,044).
Referring to claim 1, Oswal discloses a media distribution management unit for providing multi-content media to a plurality of users, each user having a respective user profile (see Page 2, Lines 5-16).
Oswal also discloses mapping, in accordance with the respective user profiles of users, user-variable content into a first media streams comprising main content (see Figure 6 and Page 23, Line 25 through Page 25, Line 5 for the user-variable content being scenes contained within the main video content), wherein the user-variable content is categorized into delayable and non-delayable content categories (see Figure 6 and Page 23, Line 25 through Page 25, Line 5 for the user-variable content being scenes contained within the main video content, wherein the user-variable content is non-delayable by allowing scenes of the content to be viewed and delayable by blocking to view content of scenes that have been determined to be objectionable by a parent or guardian).
Oswal also discloses schedule, in accordance with the delayable and non-delayable content categories of user variable content, playback of the plurality of media streams comprising the main content and the user-variable content (see Page 23, Line 25 through Page 25, Line 20 and Figures 6-7 for displaying the video content with objectionable scenes to be replaced or obscured for other users with AR glasses and allowing the parent to decide which scenes are to be replaced or obscured).
Oswal also discloses playback, in accordance with the schedule, the plurality of media streams comprising the main content and the user-variable content to the plurality of users, wherein the non-delayable content is rendered to the respective users in real-time and the delayable content is rendered to the respective users according to priority (see Figures 8 and 10 and Page 26, Lines 6-18 for displaying the video content with objectionable scenes in an unmodified manner (non-delayable) and a modified manner (delayable)).
While Oswal teaches displaying alternative content to the viewer (see Page 26, Lines 27-28), Oswal is restricted by only showing a single content for replacement, therefore Oswal fails to teach that the delayable content is sequentially rendered.
Craner discloses providing a list of replacement scenes for objectionable/blocked content for selection by a user, therefore teaching that delayable/objectionable replacement content is sequentially rendered to the user respective users according to priority (see Column 4, Lines 8-20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the delayable content display system, as taught by Oswal, using the recommended list of replacement assets for objectionable content, as taught by Craner, for the purpose of providing a media system that improves the control users have to locate media assets that are viewable under the existing parental control constraints (see Column 1, Lines 44-46 of Craner).
Referring to claim 2, Oswal also discloses allocating a respective channel for the respective user-variable content (see Page 13, Lines 21-28 for transmitting the content over well-known television transmission systems, therefore transmitting content over television channels).
Referring to claim 4, Oswal also discloses reallocating the channels for at least two of the users in accordance with their respective profiles and available content (see Page 13, Lines 21-28 in conjunction with Page 24, Line 24 through Page 25, Line 5).
Referring to claim 6, Oswal also discloses communicating with a screen for showing on each allocated channel the first stream and the respective user-variable content (see Page 4, Line 30 to Page 4, Line 2).
Referring to claim 7, Oswal also discloses mapping user-variable content in accordance with at least one of: allowable content, forbidden content and additional content (see Figure 6 and Page 23, Line 25 to Page 25, Line 5).
Referring to claim 9, Oswal also discloses that the user-variable content comprises updated information on ongoing events or alternative views of a scene (see Page 25, Lines 15-20).
Referring to claim 10, Oswell discloses performing an authentication process before activation of the media distribution management unit (see Page 24, Lines 28-31 for authenticating that all scenes are approved before receiving the approved scenes, thereby authenticating receipt of content before receiving/activation of the media distribution management unit).
Referring to claims 11-12 and 14, 16-17 and 20, see the rejection of claims 1-2, 4 and 6-7 and 10, respectively.
Referring to claim 24, see the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oswal et al. (WO 2017/103004) in view of Craner (U.S. Patent No. 8,079,044) in further view of Elwell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,687,054).
Referring to claims 3 and 13, Oswal and Craner disclose all of the limitations of claim 2, while Oswal also discloses allocating on each allocated channel the first stream to a pair of user wearable glasses (see Figure 1), but fails to teach that the glasses have a specific phase of an active shutter mechanism and a specific direction in relation to a screen on which the content is rendered.
Elwell discloses that a pair of user wearable glasses has a specific phase of an active shutter mechanism and a specific direction in relation to a screen on which the content is rendered (see Column 4, Line 43 through Column 5, Line 47).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the AR glasses, as taught by Oswal and Craner, using the active shutter component, as taught by Elwell, for the purpose of providing two viewers the ability to view and hear two versions of a video program, such as a child friendly version and an adult version, during a single showing of the video program (see Column 1, Lines 53-57 of Elwell).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oswal et al. (WO 2017/103004) in view of Craner (U.S. Patent No. 8,079,044).
Referring to claims 5 and 15, Oswal and Craner also discloses all of the limitations of claim 4, but fails to teach reallocating the channels upon determining that a current channel allocation fails to render all required user-variable content.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that a content distribution system reallocates channels upon determining that a current channel allocation fails to render all required user-variable content.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the content distribution system, as taught by Oswal and Craner, using the channel allocation functionality, as taught by the Examiner’s statement of Official Notice, for the purpose of ensuring users receive all of the user-variable content available.
Conclusion
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 JASON P SALCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7301. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am-10:00pm M-F (Flex Schedule).
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/Jason Salce/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Jason P Salce
Senior Examiner
Art Unit 2421
May 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights