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 .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-19 are pending in this Office Action.
There are no amended, cancelled or new claims.
Please note the new examiner of record on the application.
The claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. “Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969)” (MPEP p 2100-8, c 2, I 45-48; p 2100-9, c 1, l 1-4). The Examiner has full latitude to interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense. The Examiner will reference prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the amendment filed 4/9/26, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons are set forth below.
REMARKS
The Applicant Argues:
That the cited references Chen + Chundi and their incorporated material do not teach a trick play command extending the TTL of content.
In response, the examiner respectfully submits:
Applicant has claimed “receiving, from the user device, an indication of a trickplay command to rewind the content being output on the user device” and “increasing, based on the indication of the trickplay command to rewind the content, the TTL set for the at least the portion of the content.”
Paragraph 4 of Chen states:
“[0004] For example, the media guidance application may detect (e.g., using control circuitry of the media device) during presentation of a video comprising a media asset, a rewind operation. In response, the media guidance application may determine (e.g., via reading and interpreting metadata of the video) whether a playback position reached during the rewind operation occurs during a first break in the media asset. If the media guidance application determines that the playback position reached is during a first break in the media asset, the media guidance application may store metadata describing an object depicted in the video at the playback position. The media guidance application may detect, during presentation of the video, a second break in the video, and present, during the second break in the video, auxiliary video describing the object based on the stored metadata.”
Chen illustrates the rewind command and storing metadata about the content. Paragraph 5 builds on rewinding content to show storing data about the objects in the video. Para 7-10 details more rewind commands and storing associated video objects.
Ellis, incorporated into Chen, para 22 states that “options may also be available for deleting recordings after a specified period of time and after the program has been viewed.”
Para 30 recites:
“[0030] A user may be allowed to control program flow using a buffer. A user may be permitted to rewind a program that is playing from a program buffer. Rewinding a current program to the top of that program may allow the user to skip to a previous program by selecting to rewind again. Using fast-forward to reach the end of a program may cause the program to stop playing or may cause the next program from the buffer to be played.”
This is critical to understanding the office’s position. When one rewinds a program, they are adjusting the marker in the buffers of Figure 97. Rewinding the position of the viewing of the program extends the contents time in the buffer and thus teaches extending the TTL of the associated program.
Para 356 shows the user may allow by default, programs to be deleted after viewing, but if a rewind command is issued, the program would inherently be extending the viewing time of the program and require more time to view before deletion.
Para 440 details the features of Figure 97 where, it shows a user change from a first program on a first channel to a second video on a second channel.
Para 442 shows, where a user is presented with an opportunity to rewind a program from a buffer and shows gaps and extensions in the buffer where the program video is then viewed.
It is important to show that the claim only recites, ‘increasing, … , the TTL set for the at least the portion of the content.” If the TTL is set to delete upon viewing, and the user is rewinding and not completing the program, then the video content’s TTL is extended. This is further supported by applicant’s claim 4 where extension of TTL of video content is extended by rewind to play ‘time’ between commands.
Chundis is only introduced to teach the TTL exact language and show extension of content is known in the art based on commands.
Applicant’s invention as claimed:
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11956482. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims 1-19 and Patent claims 1-20 are directed to the same invention with a different in scope and are therefore an obvious variant thereof or the invention defined in instant claims 1-19 is an obvious variation of the invention defined in the patent claims 1-20 because for limitations in the instant claims that are not recited in patent claims (e.g., to rewind, to fast forward) are known by prior art (see for example, prior arts discussed in the rejection above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine in patent claims with the well-known teachings such as rewinding, fast forwarding…as taught in the prior art cited above for the benefit of allowing user to quickly go to a specific point previously or subsequently in the program.
Allowance of claims 1-19 would result in an un-warranted timewise extension of the monopoly granted for the invention as defined in claims 1-20 of Patent No. 11956482.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20210034668) in view of Chundi et al. (US 20210297718).
Note: all documents that are directly or indirectly incorporated by reference in their entireties in Chen, (see paragraphs 0053, 0075, 0078, 0080, 0098, 0106) including US 20020174430 (hereinafter referred to as Ellis), US 7761892 (referred to as E892) or Chundi (see paragraphs 0031, 0040, 0077), are treated as part of the specification of Chen (see for example, MPEP 2163.07 b).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method comprising:
receiving, from a user device, a request to output content on the user device (receiving, from a user device, a request to output/present/play/store/buffer content on the user equipment device – see include, but not limited to, Chen: figure 2, paragraphs 0045, 0048; Ellis: figures 6, 17, 37-49-51, 97, paragraphs 0174, 0292, 0299-0300);
causing, based on the request, at least a portion of the content to be stored in a cache, wherein a time is set for at least a portion of the content stored in the cache, and wherein the at least the portion of the content is stored in the cache for a period of time based on at least in part on an indication of time/date (causing, based on the request of recording/buffering and/or playback, at least a portion of the content to be recorded/buffered in a cache/buffer, wherein a time period is set for the at least a portion of the content/program stored in the cache/buffer for a period of time based at least in part on an indication of time/date associated with the at least the portion of content/program as set by user – see include, but not limited to, Chen: figure 4, paragraphs 0006, 0051, 0067, 0073, 0077-78; Ellis: figures 6, 29-30, 34, 38, 49-51, 96-98, paragraphs 0028-0032, 0319-0320, 0440-0457 and discussion in “response to arguments” above) ;
receiving, from the user device, an indication of a trickplay command to rewind the content being output on the user device (receiving, from the user device, an indication of rewind operation to rewind the content/video being output on the user device – see include, but are not limited to, Chen: figures 7-8, paragraphs 0004-0008; Ellis: figures 33, 39-40, 49-50, 97-99) ; and
increasing, based on the indication of the trickplay command to rewind the content, the time/date associated with the at least the portion of the content (Chen in view of Ellis discloses recorded/cached content is deleted when the cached content is viewed (“deleting after view”). Chen in view of Ellis also discloses when user rewind content to previous point, additional content including metadata relating to the media content or previous portion of content is stored – see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0004-0005, 0007-0010, 0049; Ellis: figures 38-39, 49-51, 61, 96-99, 103, paragraphs 0022, 0030, 0319-0320, 0351, 0356, 0440-0446-0458; E892: figures 6A-6B, 22, 30, col. 12, lines 56-63. Thus, the time associated with at least a portion of the content stored in the cache/buffer is increased as a result of subsequent portion of content is not viewed due to rewind operation or time/date increases to include the time of previous portion of content).
Chen does not explicitly discloses “time-to-live (TTL)” is set for the at least portion of content.
Additionally and/or alternatively, Chundi discloses causing, based on a request, at least a portion of the content to be stored in a cache, wherein a time-to-live (TTL) is set for the at least the portion of the content stored in the cache, and wherein the at least the portion content is stored in the cache for a period of time based at least in part on the TTL (interpreted as causing, based on a request to record or request to extend, at least a portion/clip of the content to be stored in a cached/buffer/storage, wherein a time-to-live (read on time period before the expiration or deleting of the content or time period that the content is accessible before deleting) such as 1 day, one week and/or any optimized time set to be extended for the at least the portion/clip of the content stored/recorded in the cache/storage, wherein the at least the portion/clip of content is stored in the cache/storage for a period of time based at least in part on the time period before the expiration of the content or during the time the content is accessible – see include, but are not limited to, Chundi: figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082);
receiving, from the user device, an indication of a command for the content being output on the user device (receiving, from the user device, a command such as playback or demand related to the content from other users or command to extend/delay deletion of the content stored in the cache - see include, but are not limited to, figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082);
increasing, based on the indication of the command to the content, the TTL set for the at least the portion of the content (delaying the scheduled deletion date or extend time period for content to be accessed for the clip/portion of the content based on the demand/request to extend access for the media content item or clip of content - see include, but are not limited to, figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0033, 0074, 0082).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen with the teaching including time-to-live (TTL) is set for the at least portion of content stored in the cache as taught by Chundi in order to yield predictable result of providing user an opportunity to extend availability of the media content item thereby preventing unexpected deleting of interested content – see include, but are not limited to, paragraphs 0001, 0010, 0012).
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the type of the trickplay command comprises at least one of a short rewind command, a long rewind command (e.g., trickplay command comprises at least one of a short rewind such as rewind to a short point/end of current program or long rewind to include open end rewind or end of previous program – see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0007-0008; Ellis, figures 33, 39, 50, 97, paragraphs 0446-0448; E892: figures 6A-6B, col. col. 12, lines 56-63).
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises causing at least a part of the at least the portion of the content stored in the cache to be evicted from the cache (causing a portion/clip of content stored in the cache/storage to be deleted/removed from the cache/storage/buffer – see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0061, 0166; Ellis: paragraphs 0202, 0247, 0420, 0424; E892: col. 27, line 40- col. 28, line 19; Chundi: figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082).
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving an indication of another trickplay command to play the content, and wherein the increasing the TTL set for the at least the portion of the content is stored in the cache is based on an amount of time between receiving the trickplay command to rewind the content and receiving the trickplay command to play the content (increasing amount of time the at least portion of content is stored in the cache/storage is based on an amount of time between the rewind operation to specific point within the content to which the user wants to return to playback or at terminate point of rewind operation to resume playback – see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0007-0010; Ellis: 0319, 0351, 0356, 0440-0446-0458; E892: figures 6A-6B, 22, 30, col. 12, lines 56-63; Chundi: figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082).
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the cache comprises at least one of a memory, a storage device, a storage system, or a storage subsystem (see include, but are not limited to, Chen: figures 4-5, paragraphs 0081-0085; Ellis: figures 1, 2C; E892: figures 1-2d, 7-9; Chundi: figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the cache comprises a component of a computing device configured to perform the method (see include, but are not limited to, Chen: figures 4-5, paragraphs 0081-0085; Ellis: figures 1, 2C; E892: figures 1-2d, 7-9; Chundi: figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, limitations that correspond to the limitations of claim 1 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Particularly, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method comprising: receiving, from a user device, a request to output content on the user device (see discussion in the rejection of claim 1);
causing, based on the request, at least a portion of the content to be stored in a cache, wherein a time-to-live (TTL) is set for the at least the portion of the content stored in the cache, and wherein the at least the portion of the content is stored in the cache for a period of time based on the TTL (see discussion in the rejection of claim 1 above);
receiving, from the user device, an indication of a trickplay command to fast forward the content being output on the user device (see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0057-0058, 0150-0151; Ellis: figures 3, 33, 39, paragraphs 0030, 0036; Chundi: figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082); and
decreasing, based on the indication of the trickplay command to fast forward the content, the TTL set for the at least the portion of the content is stored in the cache (see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0016, 0057-0058; Ellis: figures 38-39, 49-51, 61, 96-99, 103, paragraphs 0030, 0036, 0290, 0292, 0300, 0440-0446-0458; E892: figures 6B, 22, 25B, 30, col. 12, lines 56-61; Chundi: figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082; and similar explanation corresponding to fast forward command/operation. In particular, when user fast forward content and the subsequent portion of content is viewed quicker or content is not interest, and as a result of “deleting after viewed”, or removing content that is not interest caused by fast forward, amount of time the at least portion of content being fasted forward decreased).
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the type of the trickplay command comprises at least one of a fast forward command or a high speed fast forward command (different fast forward speeds – see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0016, 0058, 0119; Ellis: paragraphs 0036, 0300).
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the method further comprises causing at least a part of the at least the portion of the content stored in the cache to be evicted from the cache (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the decreasing the TTL set for the at least the portion of the content is stored in the cache is based on an amount of time between receiving the trickplay command to fast forward the content and receiving another trickplay command (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 4 for fast forward/skip forward and decreasing the amount of time and see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0016, 0057-0058; Ellis: figures 38-39, 49-51, 61, 96-99, 103, paragraphs 0030, 0036, 0290, 0292, 0300, 0440-0446-0458; E892: figures 6B, 22, 25B, 30, col. 12, lines 56-61).
Regarding claim 11, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the cache comprises at least one of a memory, a storage device, a storage system, or a storage subsystem (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 5 and Chen: figures 4-5, paragraphs 0081-0085; Ellis: figures 1, 2C; E892: figures 1-2d, 7-9; Chundi: figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the cache comprises a component of a computing device configured to perform the method (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 6, and Chen: figures 4-5, paragraphs 0081-0085; Ellis: figures 1, 2C; E892: figures 1-2d, 7-9; Chundi: figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 13, limitations that correspond to the limitations of claim 7 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 7. Particularly, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method comprising: receiving, from a user device, a request to output content on the user device; causing, based on the request, output of at least a first portion of the content, wherein a first time-to-live (TTL) is set for the first portion of the content, and wherein the first portion of the content is stored in a cache for a first period of time associated with the first TTL;
receiving, from the user device, an indication of a trickplay command to fast forward the output of the content on the user device to skip output of a second portion of the content; and
causing, based on the indication of the trickplay command to fast forward the output of the content on the user device, at least part of the second portion of the content to be stored in the cache for a second period of time (period of time with new extended/delay time before content is expired/deleted), wherein the second period of time is associated with a second TTL, and wherein the second portion of the content is different than the first portion of the content (first period of time is period of time before extended time and second period of time including new extended time - see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 7 and include, but are not limited to, Chen: figures 1, 10-11, paragraphs 0016, 0022, 0057-0058; Ellis: figures 38-39, 49-51, 61, 96-99, 103, paragraphs 0030, 0036, 0290, 0292, 0300, 0440-0446-0458; E892: figures 6B, 22, 25A-25B, 30, col. 12, lines 56-61; Chundi: figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082).
Regarding claim 14, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the type of the trickplay command comprises at least one of a fast forward command or a high speed fast forward command (different fast forward speeds, skip/jump – see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 8 and Chen: paragraphs 0016, 0058, 0119; Ellis: paragraphs 0036, 0300).
Regarding claim 15, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the at least the part of the second portion of the content to be stored in the cache comprises a portion of the content expected to be output in the event a trickplay command to rewind the content is received after the trickplay command to fast forward the content is received (see include, but are not limited to, Chen: figures 1, 8-12, paragraphs 0016, 0058, 0151; E892: figures 6A-6B, 22, 25A-25B; Ellis: figures 33, 39, 49-50, 61, 65, 94-95; Chundi: figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082).
Regarding claim 16, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: receiving, after receiving the trickplay command to rewind the content, a trickplay command to play the content; and causing output of the second portion of the content (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 4, see include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0007-0010; Ellis: 0319, 0351, 0356, 0440-0446-0458; E892: figures 6A-6B, 22, 30, col. 12, lines 56-63) .
Regarding claim 17, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the cache comprises at least one of a memory, a storage device, a storage system, or a storage subsystem (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 18, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the cache comprises a component of a computing device configured to perform the method (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 6).
Regarding claim 19, Chen in view of Chundi discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the method further comprises causing a third portion of content to be evicted from the cache (causing another portion of content to be deleted/removed/discarded from cache/storage – see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 3, and include, but are not limited to, Chen: paragraphs 0061, 0166; Ellis: figures 51, 74-75, 95, paragraphs 0202, 0247, 0420, 0424; E892: col. 27, line 40- col. 28, line 19; Chundi: figures 1a-3, 5-6, 8-9, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0074, 0082).
Prior Art
U. S. Patent Pub No. 20210021563 issued to Hedge in Figures 9a-9d teach cache updating TTL based on access requests, which is fundamentally, what a command to rewind is.
U. S. Patent Pub No. 20120124384 issued to Livni et al.
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 extension fee 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 BENJAMIN R BRUCKART whose telephone number is (571)272-3982. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH: 7-6p.
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. 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.
BENJAMIN R. BRUCKART
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/BENJAMIN R BRUCKART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights