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 .
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.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 09/25/2025 is disapproved. It does not comply with 37 CFR 1.321 because the POA is missing at the time of the terminal disclaimer was submitted. No additional fees are required with the resubmission.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-2 and 13 have been cancelled.
Claims 3-12 and 14-15 are pending.
The Double Patenting is maintained due to the submitted terminal disclaimer is disapproved.
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed on 09/25/2025 with respect to Claims 3-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 3-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of copending Application No. 18/664,756 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 3, the instant application claim 3 and the reference application claim 1 are both drawn to the same invention.
The claims differ in scope since the instant application claim 3 is a method of a broader in every aspect than all functionalities of a system in the reference application claim 1 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 3 of the instant application is anticipated by the reference application claim 1 in that claim 1 of the reference application contains all the limitations of claim 3 of the instant application. Claim 3 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 4-6 correspond to the reference application claims 2-4 respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 3-12 and 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,186. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 3, the instant application claim 3 and the US patent claims 1 and 7 are both drawn to the same invention.
The claims differ in scope since the instant application claim 3 is a method of a broader in every aspect than all functionalities of a system in the patent claims 1 and 7 and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 3 of the instant application is anticipated by the patent claims 1 and 7 in that claims 1 and 7 of the patent contain all the limitations of claim 3 of the instant application. Claim 3 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 4-6 correspond to the patent claims 2-4 respectively.
Claim 7 corresponds to the patent claim 1.
Claims 9 and 11 correspond to the patent claims 5-6 respectively.
Claim 14 corresponds to the patent claim 8.
Claims 3 and 8 correspond to the patent claim 9.
Claims 10, 12 and 15 correspond to the patent claims 10-12 respectively.
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.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumoto (US 2017/0347068) in view of Kellerman (US 2015/0163538) and further in view of Landfors et al (US 2022/0233272).
Regarding claim 3, Kusumoto discloses a method for altering video (Figure 1) comprising:
sending video feed by at least one camera to a hardware module (¶ [0023] and ¶ [0026]);
maintaining, by said hardware module, a predefined amount of pre-roll past video frames (¶ [0023] and ¶ [0036]);
sending said pre-roll past video frames upon connection by a user to a real time video feed display and switching to said real time video after receipt of said pre-roll past video frames (Figure 4; ¶ [0030]-[0032], ¶ [0037] and ¶ [0062] for sending recorded image then switching to live video image as user input on a switch button).
Kusumoto is silent about the pre-roll past video frames display in a fast forward manner, and combining user behavior analytics and sensory information to feed a machine learning model.
Kellerman discloses upon a user request to change to another video in a live transport stream, buffered video frames of the requested video are displayed in a fast forward manner to catch up with live video stream and switching to the live video stream after receipt of the buffered video frames (¶ [0028]-[0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kusumoto system with the teaching of Kellerman about displaying buffered video frames in fast forward manner to catch up with live video stream upon a user request, so to provide an alternative way of presenting requested video content in an automatic manner in the benefits of enhancing user viewing experience.
Kusumoto in view of Kellerman is silent about combining user behavior analytics and sensory information to feed a machine learning model.
Landfors discloses hardware module combines user behavior analytics and sensory information to feed a machine learning model (¶ [0037]-[0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kusumoto in view of Kellerman system with the teaching of Landfors about feeding a machine learning model user and sensory information, so to train a machine learning to perform tasks in an automatic manner.
Regarding claim 4, Kusumoto in view of Kellerman and further in view of Landfors discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. The combined system further discloses wherein said predefined amount of pre-roll past video frames is of a set duration prior to present time (taught by Kusumoto; ¶ [0030] and ¶ [0036]).
Regarding claim 5, Kusumoto in view of Kellerman and further in view of Landfors discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. The combined system further discloses sending a notification to said user based on a motion event and initiating said real time video upon response to said notification (taught by Kusumoto; ¶ [0030] and ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 6, Kusumoto in view of Kellerman and further in view of Landfors discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. The combined system further discloses wherein said hardware module includes a software module having a process to receive a video stream and send a video stream (taught by Kusumoto; ¶ [0022]; and taught by Kellerman; ¶ [0019]-[0023]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 and 14-15 would be allowable if the resubmission of terminal disclaimer get approved to overcome the Double Patenting, set forth in this Office action.
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 GIGI L DUBASKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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.
/GIGI L DUBASKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421