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 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 Office Action is in response to an AMENDMENT entered 9/18/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 52-71 are pending.
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 52, 57-60, 62 and 67-70 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 17 and 19 of conflicting Patent No. 10,719,988 B2 and claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 16 and 18 of conflicting Patent No. 11,443,488 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 52 of the pending application is generic to all that is recited in claims 1 of the conflicting Patent No. 10,719,988 B2 and 11,443,488 B2. That is, claim 1 of the pending application is anticipated by claim 1 of the conflicting applications. Also the corresponding dependent claims are identically the same. Look below for example.
Table 1 illustrates the conflicting claim pairs:
Conflicting Patent No. 10,719,988 B2
1
1
3
1 & 7
9
Conflicting Patent No. 11,443,488 B2
1
1
4
1 & 7
9
Pending Application 18/739696
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Conflicting Patent No.
10,719,988 B2
11
11
13
11 and 17
19
Conflicting Patent No. 11,443,488 B2
10
10
13
10 and 16
18
Pending Application 18/739696
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
Table 2 illustrates a mapping between the limitations claim 52 of the pending application and claim 1 of the conflicting Patent No. 10,719,988 B2. Claim 62 of pending application and claim 11 in the conflicting Patent No. 10,719,988 B2 and claim 10 in the conflicting Patent No. 11,443,488 B2, respectively, are analyzed similarly. Additionally, the dependent claims are analyzed similarly.
Conflicting Patent No. 10,719,988 B2
Claim 1 of Conflicting Application
Serial Number (18/739696)
Claim 1 of Pending Application
1. A method for displaying information about media content using augmented reality, the method comprising:
retrieving using control circuitry, from a media database, information associated with a media asset;
generating using the control circuitry a non-augmented reality display of the information associated with the media asset;
retrieving using the control circuitry, from the media database, additional information associated with the media asset based on a user preference for a respective user of an augmented reality device;
providing using the control circuitry, in a plurality of augmented reality devices, an augmented reality display of the information associated with the media asset, wherein the augmented reality display in each respective one of the plurality of augmented reality devices comprises the respective additional information associated with the media asset based on the respective user preference of the respective user accessing one of the plurality of augmented reality devices;
analyzing, using the control circuitry, the additional information provided for each of the respective users of the plurality of the augmented reality devices to identify a common element among the additional information provided in the plurality of the augmented reality devices;
selecting, using the control circuitry, the common element of the additional information, the common element provided for at least two of the respective users of the plurality of augmented reality devices;
receiving, using the control circuitry, a plurality of interactions with the information associated with the media asset or the additional information associated with the media asset from any of the respective users of the plurality of augmented reality devices;
detecting, using the control circuitry, a common interaction among the plurality of interactions; and
updating, using the control circuitry, the non-augmented reality display of information based on the common element of the additional information and the common interaction.
52. (New) A method comprising:
generating, at a display device, a non-augmented reality display of a media asset;
generating, on an augmented reality device, an augmented reality display of the media asset, the media asset displayed on the augmented reality device comprising a plurality of interactive objects;
detecting user interaction with an interactive object of the plurality of interactive objects of the media asset, the user interaction occurring at the augmented reality device; based at least in part on the user interaction, retrieving, from a database, additional information associated with the interactive object based on a user profile associated with the augmented reality device; and
updating the non-augmented reality display of information based on the detected user interaction to include the additional information associated with the interactive object.
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 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 52, 54-57, 62 and 64-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20190118099 A1 to Payzer in view of US Pub. No. 20170262154 A1 to Black.
As to claim 52 and 62, Payzer discloses a method comprising:
generating, at a display device, a non-augmented reality display of a media asset (Payzer Fig. 1, 2, ¶0021, 0029, 0031, 0036, 0039, 0052-0054, 0057, generating a non-augmented reality display of a plurality of information associated with a plurality of objects on a plurality of remote viewing devices);
generating, on an augmented reality device, an augmented reality display of the media asset, the media asset displayed on the augmented reality device comprising a plurality of interactive objects (Payzer Fig. 1, 2, ¶0021, 0029, 0031, 0036, 0040, 0052-0054, 0057, generating a plurality of GUI interface of the plurality of information provided to the viewers of the remote viewing devices including augmented reality computers);
detecting user interaction with an interactive object of the plurality of interactive objects of the media asset, the user interaction occurring at the augmented reality device (Payzer Fig. 1, 2, ¶0021, 0029, 0031, 0036, 0040, 0052-0054, 0057, receiving a plurality of viewer selections on the GUI interface of the augmented reality computers);
updating the non-augmented reality display of information based on the detected user interaction to include the additional information associated with the interactive object (Payzer Fig. 1, 2, ¶0021, 0029, 0031, 0036, 0040, 0052-0054, 0057, updating on a plurality of the remote viewing devices including desktop computer based on the plurality of GUI interface and votes).
Payzer does not expressly disclose based at least in part on the user interaction, retrieving, from a database, additional information associated with the interactive object based on a user profile associated with the augmented reality device.
Black discloses based at least in part on the user interaction, retrieving, from a database, additional information associated with the interactive object based on a user profile associated with the augmented reality device (Black Fig. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, ¶0040, 0052, 0070, 0095-0097, based on the user interaction with selecting the tags/items, receive from server, access to the content associated with the selected tag/item based on the user account information with permission access associated with the HMD device).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Payzer by based at least in part on the user interaction, retrieving, from a database, additional information associated with the interactive object based on a user profile associated with the augmented reality device as disclosed by Black. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide access to content according to the users account upon the user selection of the item thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
As to claim 54 and 64, Payzer discloses wherein the augmented reality device is at a location different from where the non-augmented reality display is located (Payzer Fig. 1, 2, ¶0021, 0029, 0031, 0036, 0039, 0052-0054, 0057, remote viewing devices in different locations in the network, e.g. WAN, LAN).
As to claim 55 and 65, Payzer discloses wherein the non-augmented reality display of the media asset includes the plurality of interactive objects, the method further comprising:
detecting user interaction, at the non-augmented reality display, with a second interactive object of the plurality of interactive objects (Payzer Fig. 1, 2, ¶0021, 0029, 0031, 0036, 0040, 0052-0054, 0057, receiving a plurality of viewer selections on the GUI interface of the augmented reality computers);
retrieving, from the database, additional information associated with the second interactive object based on a user profile associated with the display device (Black Fig. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, ¶0040, 0052, 0070, 0095-0097, based on the user interaction with selecting the tags/items, receive from server, access to the content associated with the selected tag/item based on the user account information with permission access associated with the HMD device); and
updating the augmented reality display of the media asset based on the detected user interaction to include the additional information associated with the second interactive object (Payzer Fig. 1, 2, ¶0021, 0029, 0031, 0036, 0040, 0052-0054, 0057, updating on a plurality of the remote viewing devices including desktop computer based on the plurality of GUI interface and votes).
As to claim 56 and 66, Payzer discloses wherein the augmented reality device is a first augmented reality device of a plurality of augmented reality devices, the method further comprising:
detecting user interactions, with the plurality of augmented reality devices, with the plurality of interactive objects (Payzer Fig. 1, 2, ¶0021, 0029, 0031, 0036, 0040, 0052-0054, 0057, receiving a plurality of viewer selections on the GUI interface of the augmented reality computers);
based on the detected user interactions with the plurality of interactive objects, determining that a majority of the plurality of augmented reality devices interacted with a particular object (Payzer Fig. 1, 2, ¶0021, 0029, 0031, 0036, 0040, 0052-0054, 0057, providing the plurality of GUI interface of the plurality of information provided the plurality of viewers of the remote viewing devices including augmented reality computers that is identical to remote viewing device display 180’’ to vote);
retrieving, from the database, additional information associated with the particular object (Black Fig. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, ¶0040, 0052, 0070, 0095-0097, based on the user interaction with selecting the tags/items, receive from server, access to the content associated with the selected tag/item based on the user account information with permission access associated with the HMD device); and
updating the non-augmented reality display of information based on the detected user interactions to include the additional information associated with the particular object (Payzer Fig. 1, 2, ¶0021, 0029, 0031, 0036, 0040, 0052-0054, 0057, updating on a plurality of the remote viewing devices including desktop computer based on the plurality of GUI interface and votes).
As to claim 57 and 67, Payzer discloses wherein the augmented reality device is a first augmented reality device of a plurality of augmented reality devices, the method further comprising: determining a common element of the additional information provided for any of the plurality of augmented reality devices (Payzer Fig. 1, 2, ¶0021, 0029, 0031, 0036, 0040, 0052-0054, 0057, determining a plurality of GUI interface of the plurality of information provided to the viewers of the remote viewing devices including augmented reality computers); and updating the non-augmented reality display of information based on the common element of the additional information (Payzer Fig. 1, 2, ¶0021, 0029, 0031, 0036, 0040, 0052-0054, 0057, updating on a plurality of the remote viewing devices including desktop computer based on the plurality of GUI interface and votes).
Claims 53 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20190118099 A1 to Payzer in view of US Pub. No. 20170262154 A1 to Black and in further view of US Pub. No. 20110138416 A1 to Kang.
As to claim 53 and 63, Payzer and Black do not expressly disclose wherein the media asset comprises program listings.
Kang discloses wherein the media asset comprises program listings (Kang ¶0026, 0175, EPG).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Payzer and Black by wherein the media asset comprises program listings as disclosed by Kang. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide a listing of programs on the display that allows the user to see program of interest thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
Claims 60 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20190118099 A1 to Payzer in view of US Pub. No. 20170262154 A1 to Black and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 20160366464 A1 to Rouady.
As to claim 60 and 70, Payzer and Black do not expressly disclose generating a picture-in-picture window in the non-augmented reality display, the picture-in- picture window overlaying a main display, and comprising the additional information associated with the interactive object.
Rouady discloses generating a picture-in-picture window in the non-augmented reality display, the picture-in- picture window overlaying a main display, and comprising the additional information associated with the interactive object (Rouady Fig. 9-12, ¶0074-0077, generating interactive overlay on the television the interactive overlay overlaying display 900 and includes time remaining information associated with 915, 920).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Payzer and Black by generating a picture-in-picture window in the non-augmented reality display, the picture-in- picture window overlaying a main display, and comprising the additional information associated with the interactive object as disclosed by Rouady. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide an overlay that allows the user to simultaneous view the content and additional information at the same time thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
Claims 61 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20190118099 A1 to Payzer in view of US Pub. No. 20170262154 A1 to Black and in further view of US Patent No. 8,910,201 B1 to Zamiska.
As to claim 61 and 71, Payzer and Black do not expressly disclose determining a relevance of the interactive object to a user of the augmented reality device.
Zamiska discloses determining a relevance of the interactive object to a user of the augmented reality device (Zamiska Fig. 2-5, col. 7, Il. 53-col. 8, Il. 14, col. 11, Il. 29-col. 12, Il. 16, most recent user preferences).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Payzer and Black by determining a relevance of the interactive object to a user of the augmented reality device as disclosed by Zamiska. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide the most relevant interactive objects for selection for the user thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 58, 59, 68 and 69 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 52-71 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2025 related to claims 52, 57-60, 62 and 67-70 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to Applicant's arguments:
Claims 52, 57-60, 62, and 67-70 were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,719,988, and claims 1, 4, 7, 9-10, 13, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,443,488. Although Applicant respectfully disagrees and traverses these rejections, Applicant respectfully requests the Examiner to hold them in abeyance until Applicant receives an indication of allowability of an independent claim.
Examiners Response:
Although the claims have been amended, the rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 52, 57-60, 62, and 67-70 are maintained.
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 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 date of this final action.
Claims 52-57, 60-67 and 70-71 have been rejected.
Claims 58, 59, 68 and 69 are objected.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYU CHAE whose telephone number is (571)270-5696. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00am -4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NASSER MOAZZAMI can be reached on 571-272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYU CHAE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426