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 with respect to all pending claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. claim 20 was added. Claim 19 was amended to overcome the 101 rejection. Applicant argues that cited references failed to disclose select at least one piece of content of a plurality of pieces of content based on the travel destination information.
However, Rhoads et al show in fig.1 to fig.5B a system being able to travel information and destination of the vehicle in order to upload or select video content for the passengers of aircraft passengers and driving direction and maps related to travel route can be used to entertainment content as disclosed in para. 0026;0030;0032;0052-0053;0063-0064; 0067. This action is made final.
Claims objections
Claims 2-9; 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims rejections-35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 1; 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemond(US.Pub.No20080133705) in view of Rhoads(US.Pub.No.20050256616).
Regarding claim 1, Lemond et al disclose a content distribution system, comprising: a first server comprising at least one first processor configured to that distributes content to acquire a travel destination information(see fig.1 to fig.6 having a moving body 200 and a server 300), wherein the travel destination information indicates a travel destination of a moving body(see fig.1 to fig.6 with data acquisition 207 for processing collected data; 0036;0043);
reproduce the acquired at least one piece of content(see fig.1 to fig.6 with a gateway transceiver 210 for reproducing video content being distributed by the ground server 300; 0032;0037).
But did not explicitly disclose select at least one piece of content of a plurality of pieces of content based on the travel destination information; and distribute the selected at least one piece of content to the moving body, the moving body comprising at least one second processor configured to: acquire the selected at least one piece of content distributed by the first server.
However, Rhoads et al disclose select at least one piece of content of a plurality of pieces of content based on the travel destination information; and distribute the selected at least one piece of content to the moving body, the moving body comprising at least one second processor configured to: acquire the selected at least one piece of content distributed by the first server(see fig.1 to fig.5B with content distribution system 400 for selecting and distributing video contents to the vehicle or aircraft 300 based on destination data or information; 0026;0030;0032;0052-0053;0063-0064; 0067).
It would have been obvious before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rhoads to modify Lemond by introducing a content distribution system 400 for the purpose of selecting and providing video contents to users across the moving body accordingly.
Regarding claim 14, Lemond et al disclose wherein in a case where a departure place on an outward way is set as the travel destination information of a return way of the moving body, the at least one first processor is further configured to: select the at least one piece of content based on at least one of a basis of the travel destination information or information of a current location of the moving body; and distribute the at least one piece of content to the moving body(the system is able to select video contents based on travel destination or current location of the aircraft and preferences of the users; 0043-0044; 0040).
Regarding claim 15, Lemond et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one first processor is further configured to: select the at least one piece of content based on at least one of the travel destination information or the information of the current location; and distribute the at least one piece of content to the moving body in response to a request from a passenger of the moving body.
However, Rhoads et al disclose wherein the at least one first processor is further configured to: select the at least one piece of content based on at least one of the travel destination information or the information of the current location; and distribute the at least one piece of content to the moving body in response to a request from a passenger of the moving body(passengers have the options to select video contents;0029; 0032).
It would have been obvious before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rhoads to modify Lemond by introducing a content distribution system 400 for the purpose of selecting and providing video contents to users across the moving body accordingly.
Regarding claim 16, Lemond et al disclose wherein the at least one piece of content includes at least one of a video, a game, music, audio, or a still image(0046;0058).
Regarding claim 17, Lemond et al disclose wherein the moving body includes at least one of a vehicle, a ship, or an aircraft(see fig.1 to fig.3 with the aircraft 200; 0032-0033).
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Lemond et al disclose a content distribution system, comprising: a first server comprising at least one first processor that is configured to: acquire travel destination information( see fig.1 to fig.6 having a moving body 200 and a server 300), wherein the travel destination information indicates a travel destination of a moving body(see fig.1 to fig.6 with data acquisition 207 for processing collected data; 0036;0043);
reproduce the acquired at least one piece of content(see fig.1 to fig.6 with a gateway transceiver 210 for reproducing video content being distributed by the ground server 300; 0032;0037); and
a second server different from the first server, wherein the at least one first processor is further configured to transmit the selected at least one piece of content to the second server, the second server includes at least one third processor that is configured to: select a first advertisement of a plurality of advertisements, associated with the at least one piece of content based on the selected at least one piece of content(the system is able to select commercial based on travel destination; 0060); and transmit the selected first advertisement to the first server, the at least one first processor is further configured to: generate content with advertisement based on the selected first advertisement and the selected at least one piece of content; and distribute the generated content with advertisement to the moving body, and the at least one second processor is further configured to reproduce the generated content with advertisement(the system is able to select commercials from advertisement servers in order to provide the selected advertisements to a remote server being responsible reproduce the advertisements to the user devices as passengers flying into Las Vegas are shown a unique destination guide for Las Vegas and advertisements related to casinos and local attractions,0060).
But did not explicitly disclose select at least one piece of content of a plurality of pieces of content based on the travel destination information; and distribute the selected at least one piece of content to the moving body, the moving body comprising at least one second processor that is configured to: acquire the selected at least one piece of content distributed by the first server.
However, Rhoads et al disclose select at least one piece of content of a plurality of pieces of content based on the travel destination information; and distribute the selected at least one piece of content to the moving body, the moving body comprising at least one second processor that is configured to: acquire the selected at least one piece of content distributed by the first server(see fig.1 to fig.5B with content distribution system 400 for distributing video contents to the vehicle or aircraft 300 based on destination data or information; 0026;0030;0032;0052-0053;0063-004; 0067).
It would have been obvious before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rhoads to modify Lemond by introducing a content distribution system 400 for the purpose of selecting and providing video contents to users across the moving body accordingly.
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 JEAN D SAINT CYR whose telephone number is (571)270-3224. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 5712727527. 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.
/JEAN D SAINT CYR/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
/Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425