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 .
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 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, 4, 8, 11, 15, 18, 22 and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, 18, 46, 59 of U.S. Patent No. 11,076,205; claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 21, 28, 29 of U.S Patent No. 11,736,778 and claims 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,348. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1, 13, 18, 46, 59 of U.S. Patent No. 11,076,205; claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 21, 28, 29 of U.S Patent No. 11,736,778 and claims 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,348. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claims are narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extent the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP § 804 (II)(B)(1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 11+ of the 03/12/2026 Remarks that the combination of Hanko, Kuusiholma and Oztaskent fail to disclose “receiving, by a computing device; a closed-captioning data stream comprising an identifier indicating that a plurality of supplemental content items associated with the primary content item are available; and …based on receiving a user input and on the identifier, causing, by the computing device, output of data indicating the plurality of supplemental content items”.
In response to argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that Hanko fails to teach receiving, by a computing device. Hanko explicitly describes in paragraphs 0024-0025 that the system is operative to receive a signal comprising audio video programming and auxiliary information.
Applicant argues that Kuusiholma’s “tag” is not an identifier indicating that a plurality of supplemental content items are available. Kuusiholma discloses an identifier in the closed-captioning data stream in paragraphs 0008-0009. The “tag” is an identifier. The claim does not require the identifier itself to enumerate/list the supplemental items. The claim does not require the supplemental items to be in the closed caption stream. It only requires the identifier. It only indicates that a plurality of supplemental items are available. Therefore, Kuusiholma teaches inserting an identifier (“tag”) into a closed-captioning data stream and detecting that identifier during playback in paragraphs 0008-0009, 0026-0028. Oztaskent discloses that a plurality of supplemental content items associated with a media program are available, including keywords, links, text snippets, product logos, faces, songs, and topics (i.e., multiple supplemental items in paragraph 0029). So the combination yields Kuusiholma disclosing identifier in closed captioning stream and Oztaskent disclosing plurality of supplemental items associated with the primary content. The Applicant improperly argues each reference must individually disclose the entire limitation. Under KSR, the Examiner may combine references where each supplies a missing piece.
Applicant further argues the cited references at least fail to disclose or suggest, “based on receiving a user input and on the identifier, causing, by the computing device, output of data indicating the plurality of supplemental content items”.
In response to argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hanko teaches user-initiated display of auxiliary/supplemental information in paragraph 0016. In response to the user pushing a “recall” or similar button on the remote control 250, the system will textually display an appropriate amount of recent dialog on the screen. The appropriate amount may be determined by a combination of time (e.g. 15 seconds), natural breaks (e.g. sentence or paragraph), a number of words (screen-full), etc. while the normal video continues to play (see paragraph 0016). So Hanko provides the user-input trigger.
Kuusiholma teaches that the identifier (tag) triggers retrieval of content in fig. 4. Thus, Kuusiholma provides the identifier based output logic.
Oztaskent teaches outputting multiple supplemental items (in paragraph 0008; causing a portion of the obtained supplemental content to be presented concurrently with the media content item). So when combined, Hanko teaches user input, Kuusiholma teaches identifier based retrieval and Oztaskent teaches plurality of supplemental items.
The combination of Hanko, Kuusiholma and Oztaskent reads on claim 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Kuusiholma’s closed captioning embedded identifier to signal the availability of Oztaskent’s supplemental items and to present those items in response to user input as taught by Hanko. The Applicant’s arguments improperly attack the references individually rather than the combination as permitted under KSR. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 under §103 is maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, 19, 22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanko et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0341694) in view of Kuusiholma et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0188573) and Oztaskent et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0189347).
Regarding claim 1, Hanko et al. discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device (see paragraph 0023 and fig. 3 (Television receiver, 300)):
a video data stream comprising a primary content item (see paragraphs 0024-0025 and fig. 3; an audio video program stream 305 comprising the primary content item); and
a closed-captioning data stream (see paragraph 0024 and fig. 3; a closed captioning data stream 325).
Hanko teaches user-initiated display of auxiliary/supplemental information in paragraph 0016. In response to the user pushing a “recall” or similar button on the remote control 250, the system will textually display an appropriate amount of recent dialog on the screen. The appropriate amount may be determined by a combination of time (e.g. 15 seconds), natural breaks (e.g. sentence or paragraph), a number of words (screen-full), etc. while the normal video continues to play (see paragraph 0016). So Hanko provides the user-input trigger.
However, Hanko et al. is silent as to the closed-captioning data stream comprising an identifier indicating that a plurality of supplemental content items associated with the primary content item are available; retrieving, by the computing device, the identifier from the closed-captioning data stream; and based on receiving a user input and on the identifier, causing, by the computing device, output of data indicating the plurality of supplemental content items.
Kuusiholma et al. discloses an identifier in the closed-captioning data stream (see paragraphs 0008-0009; associating a tag with a pointer to interactive content. Paragraph 0009; inserting the tag into the closed caption data. Paragraph 0027-0028; detecting in the closed caption data a tag with a pointer to interactive content and fig. 4 shows tag detection within CC data);
retrieving, by the computing device, the identifier from the closed-captioning data stream (see paragraphs 0026-0028; decoding closed caption data, detecting in the closed caption data a tag with a pointer to interactive content. See fig. 4(410,420 – read closed caption code; find ubiquitous tag from closed caption)). Kuusiholma teaches that the identifier (tag) triggers retrieval of content in fig. 4. Thus, Kuusiholma provides the identifier based output logic.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hanko et al. with the teaching of Kuusiholma et al., the motivation being to provide interactive content associated with the media.
However, Hanko et al. and Kuusiholma et al. are silent as to based on receiving a user input and on the identifier, causing, by the computing device, output of data indicating the plurality of supplemental content items.
Oztaskent et al. discloses identifier indicating that a plurality of supplemental content items associated with the primary content (see paragraph 0029; supplemental content includes multiple items: extracted keywords, links to articles, text snippets, selectable links, identified product logos, faces, famous places, identified songs, identified topics, links to news articles. Fig. 1 shows multiple supplemental content “cards” (150, 160, 170, 180), each a distinct supplemental content item. Paragraphs 0036-0037 discloses that supplemental items are associated with the primary content item);
Oztaskent teaches outputting multiple supplemental items (in paragraph 0008, 0036-0037, fig. 1; causing a portion of the obtained supplemental content to be presented concurrently with the media content item). So when combined, Hanko teaches user input, Kuusiholma teaches identifier based retrieval and Oztaskent teaches plurality of supplemental items.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hanko et al. and Kuusiholma et al. with the teaching of Oztaskent et al., the motivation being to enhance a viewer’s experience by providing supplemental information associated with media content.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, Hanko et al. discloses a system comprising:
a first computing device (see fig. 1 (set top box 140) and paragraph 0010); and
a second computing device (see fig. 1 (Television 150) and paragraph 0010),
wherein the first computing device comprises:
at least one processor (see paragraph 0023-0024 and fig. 3; video decoder 320, CC decoder 330); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first computing device to (see paragraph 0023-0024 and fig. 3; buffer 340, UI 350):
receive:
a video data stream comprising a primary content item (see paragraphs 0023-0024 and fig. 3; audio video data stream 315); and
a closed-captioning data stream (see paragraph 0024 and fig. 3; a closed captioning data stream 325) and where the second computing device is configured to send the video data stream and the closed-captioning data stream (see paragraphs 0010-0015 and fig. 1; the set-top box 140 or broadcast system sends the video and CC streams to the television receiver).
However, Hanko et al. is silent as to the closed-captioning data stream comprising an identifier indicating that a plurality of supplemental content items associated with the primary content item are available; retrieving, by the computing device, the identifier from the closed-captioning data stream; and based on receiving a user input and on the identifier, causing, by the computing device, output of data indicating the plurality of supplemental content items.
Kuusiholma et al. discloses an identifier in the closed-captioning data stream (see paragraph 0008; associating a tag with a pointer to interactive content. Paragraph 0009; inserting the tag into the closed caption data. Paragraph 0027-0028; detecting in the closed caption data a tag with a pointer to interactive content and fig. 4 shows tag detection within CC data);
retrieving, by the computing device, the identifier from the closed-captioning data stream (see paragraphs 0027-0028; decoding closed caption data, detecting in the closed caption data a tag with a pointer to interactive content. See fig. 4(410,420 – read closed caption code; find ubiquitous tag from closed caption)).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hanko et al. with the teaching of Kuusiholma et al., the motivation being to provide interactive content associated with the media.
However, Hanko et al. and Kuusiholma et al. are silent as to based on receiving a user input and on the identifier, causing, by the computing device, output of data indicating the plurality of supplemental content items.
Oztaskent et al. discloses identifier indicating that a plurality of supplemental content items associated with the primary content (see paragraph 0029; supplemental content includes multiple items: extracted keywords, links to articles, text snippets, selectable links, identified product logos, faces, famous places, identified songs, identified topics, links to news articles. Fig. 1 shows multiple supplemental content “cards” (150, 160, 170, 180), each a distinct supplemental content item. Paragraphs 0036-0037 discloses that supplemental items are associated with the primary content item);
based on receiving a user input and on the identifier, causing, by the computing device, output of data indicating the plurality of supplemental content items (see paragraphs 0036-0037 and fig. 1; selecting the availability indicator causes display of multiple supplemental content cards).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hanko et al. and Kuusiholma et al. with the teaching of Oztaskent et al., the motivation being to enhance a viewer’s experience by providing supplemental information associated with media content.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16 and 23, Hanko et al., Kuusiholma et al. and Oztaskent et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1,8, 15 and 22). Hanko et al. discloses causing output of the primary content item (see paragraph 0024 and fig. 3; outputting the decoded audio/video signal 335 to the audio video display 360 for presentation of the primary content item).
Oztaskent et al. discloses causing, based on receiving a selection of one of the plurality of supplemental content items, output of the selected one of the plurality of supplemental content items (see paragraphs 0029-0031, 0037, fig. 1(150, 160, 170, 180)), by replacing a portion of the primary content item with the selected one of the plurality of supplemental content items (see paragraph 0030; overlaying or substituting supplemental information with the primary content item. Supplemental information can be provided within a window that overlays a video window presenting the on-demand program).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hanko et al. and Sahota with the teaching of Kirby, the motivation being to provide an enhanced television experience.
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17 and 24, Hanko et al., Kuusiholma et al. and Oztaskent et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1,8, 15 and 22).
Hanko et al. discloses causing output of the primary content item (see paragraph 0024 and fig. 3).
Kuusiholma et al. discloses receiving, for each supplemental content item of the plurality of supplemental content items, one or more display parameters (see paragraph 0066; presentation instructions).
Oztaskent et al. discloses multiple supplemental content items each having associated display parameter (see paragraphs 0029-0031; supplemental content presented on “cards”, where each card has its own layout, content type, and contextual timing information. Paragraphs 0008-0009; each supplemental item is associated with timing information. Timing information and card formatting constitute display parameters;
receiving a selection of one of the plurality of supplemental content items (see paragraph 0037, fig. 1);
causing, based on one or more display parameters associated with the selected one of the plurality of supplemental content items, output of the selected one of the plurality of supplemental content items by based on replacing a portion of the primary content item with the selected one of the plurality of supplemental content items (see paragraphs 0030).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19 and 26, Hanko et al., Kuusiholma et al. and Oztaskent et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1,8, 15 and 22). Hanko et al. discloses wherein receiving the video data stream and the closed-captioning data stream comprises receiving the video data stream and the closed-captioning data stream via a first transmission, the method further comprising (see fig. 3 and paragraphs 0010-0015, 0024; receiving an audio/video program stream and closed-captioning data stream from a broadcast or set-top box transmission. Paragraphs 0010-0015; satellite/cable/IP transmission. Paragraph 0024; demultiplexing the received program stream into video and CC streams):
Kuusiholma et al. discloses receiving an address for each supplemental content item (see paragraph 0066).
Oztaskent et al. discloses of the plurality of supplemental content items each having associated addresses (see paragraph 0029).
Claims 4, 11, 18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanko et al., Kuusiholma et al. and Oztaskent et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0047589) and Fu (U.S. Patent No. 6,320,621).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18 and 25, Hanko et al., Kuusiholma et al. and Oztaskent et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1,8, 15 and 22).
Hanko et al. discloses user input via a remote control button to trigger auxiliary information (see paragraphs 0016, 0024).
Although Hanko, Kuusiholma et al. and Oztaskent et al. does not explicitly disclose double press.
Kim discloses viewer chooses a caption among captions listed in the caption display window and enters “go” command or makes double-clicks on a caption (see paragraph 0062; double-click on a caption displayed in a display window).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hanko et al., Kuusiholma et al., Oztaskent et al. with the teaching of Kim, the motivation being to retrieving search information.
However, Hanko et al., Kuusiholma et al., Oztaskent et al. and Kim are silent as to receiving a press of a closed-captioning button on an input device.
Fu discloses receiving a press of a closed-captioning button on an input device (see col. 2, lines 15 and fig. 2(22); closed captioning button).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hanko et al., Kuusiholma et al., Oztaskent et al. and Kim with the teaching of Fu, the motivation being to provide ease of accessing content.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 13-14, 20-21, 27 and 28 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.
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 NNENNA NGOZI EKPO whose telephone number is (571)270-1663. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 10:00am - 6:30pm, TH-F 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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 571-272-7527. 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.
NNENNA EKPO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/NNENNA N EKPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 April 7, 2026.