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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,184,672 in view of Shimy et al, further in view of Busse et al.
Claim 1 corresponds to patent claims 1 and 6. The claim differs by limitations of “sending, to a second computing device associated with the first user, an option to view a portion of the content item corresponding to a difference between the viewing progress of the one or more remaining users and a departure point of the first user leaving the group viewing session; and causing the portion of the content item to be presented via the second computing device while the content item continues to be presented to the one or more remaining users from a current viewing progress of the one or more remaining users.”
In similar field of endeavor, Shimy et al teaches an option to view a portion of the content item corresponding to a difference between the viewing progress of the one or more remaining users and a departure point of the first user leaving the group viewing session (Para. 0140 and 0151); and while the content item continues to be presented to the one or more remaining users from a current viewing progress of the one or more remaining users (i.e. current content to continue playing uninterrupted) (Para. 0151, 0187). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention for the purpose of allowing user to get better context of missed portions of video without interrupting others.
The combination is unclear with respect to sending, to a second computing device associated with the first user, causing the portion of the content item to be presented via the second computing device.
In similar field of endeavor, Busse et al teaches concept of sending, to a second computing device associated with the first user, causing the portion of the content item to be presented via the second computing device (Abstract; Figures 6, 9; Para. 0013). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention for the purpose of allowing user to view content on different devices that provide better experience.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 15-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,088,878. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are broader in every aspect than the patent claims and are therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 correspond to claim 1.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 correspond to claim 1.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 correspond to claim 3.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 correspond to claim 5.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimy et al (US PG Pub No. 2011/0069940), in view of Busse et al (US PG Pub No. 2014/0344848).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, a method (Abstract) comprising:
monitoring, by a first computing device and after a first user leaves a group viewing session of a content item, viewing progress, through the content item, of one or more remaining users of the group viewing session (i.e. last several contents accessed by Elaine, at what point within the content she was detected to have left the device, some indicator indicating when Elaine left the device ) (Figure 9; Para. 0144, 0150, 0179 and 0187); and
after determining that the first user has returned to the group viewing session (i.e. when Elaine returns to the device, status 1202 may indicate that Elaine is a returning user )(Para. 0151 and 0187);
an option to view a portion of the content item corresponding to a difference between the viewing progress of the one or more remaining users and a departure point of the first user leaving the group viewing session (i.e. an option may be provided for these actions as opposed to automatically performing the options) (Para. 0140 and 0151); and
while the content item continues to be presented to the one or more remaining users from a current viewing progress of the one or more remaining users (i.e. current content to continue playing uninterrupted) (Para. 0151, 0187). The reference is unclear with respect to sending, to a second computing device associated with the first user, causing the portion of the content item to be presented via the second computing device.
In similar field of endeavor, Busse et al teaches concept of sending, to a second computing device associated with the first user, causing the portion of the content item to be presented via the second computing device (Abstract; Figures 6, 9; Para. 0013). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of allowing user to view content on different devices that provide better experience.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected wherein determining that the first user has left the group viewing session based on determining that the first user has left an area of a display device associated with the group viewing session (Shimy: Figure 9; Para. 0144, 0179 and 0187).
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected wherein advertisements shown when the portion of the content item is shown to the first user are different from advertisements shown when the portion was shown to the one or more remaining users (Shimy: Para. 0136).
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimy et al, Busse et al, further in view of Singh et al (US Patent No. 10,063,927).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Shimy and Busse teach sending, to the second computing device after determining that the first user has returned to the group viewing session, an option corresponding to the current viewing progress of the one or more remaining viewers; portion that the first user missed after leaving the group viewing session (Shimy: Figure 8; Para. Para. 0139-0140, 0157, 0191). The combination is unclear with respect to provide a split-screen presentation in which: a first portion of the split-screen presentation comprises a portion of the content item and a second portion of the split-screen presentation comprises a portion of the content item.
In similar field of endeavor, Singh et al teaches provide a split-screen presentation in which: a first portion of the split-screen presentation comprises a portion of the content item and a second portion of the split-screen presentation comprises a portion of the content item (Figure 1; Col.6 lines 46-61, Col.8 lines 43-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination by specifically a split-screen presentation of the content item, wherein: a first portion of the split-screen presentation comprises a portion of the content item; and a second portion of the split-screen presentation comprises a portion of the content item before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the common knowledge purpose of easily allowing plurality of users to view different content simultaneously to view current status and progress of other user(s).
Claim(s) 5-6, 12-13, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimy et al, Busse et al, further in view of Whitten et al (US PG Pub no. 2012/0079548).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Shimy and Busse, the combination teaches limitations discussed with respect to claim 1. The combination teaches providing a warning to viewer/user (i.e. alert message) (Shimy: Fig. 14). However, the combination is unclear with respect to after a request to delete a recording of the content item, that at least one user of the group viewing session has not completed viewing the content item.
In similar field of endeavor, Whitten et al teaches after a request to delete a recording of the content item, that at least one user of the group viewing session has not completed viewing the content item (Figure 4; Para. 0043-44). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of allowing users to optimize storage space and to view content on different devices that provide better experience.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Shimy and Busse, the combination teaches limitations discussed with respect to claim 1. The combination is unclear with respect to denying, based on viewing progress of one or more users of the group viewing session, a deletion request.
In similar field of endeavor, Whitten et al teaches denying, based on viewing progress of one or more users of the group viewing session, a deletion request (Figure 4; Para. 0043-44). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of allowing users to optimize storage space and to view content on different devices that provide better experience.
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimy et al (US PG Pub No. 2011/0069940), in view of Busse et al (US PG Pub No. 2014/0344848), further in view of Kalaboukis et al (US PG Pub No. 2009/0138493).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 21, Shimy and Busse, the combination teaches limitations of claim 1. The combination is unclear with respect to the second computing device is in a vehicle, and wherein the method further comprises: based on determining a seating position of the first user in the vehicle, determining whether to include video in the presentation of the portion via the second computing device.
In similar field of endeavor, Kalaboukis et al teaches the second computing device is in a vehicle, and wherein the method further comprises: based on determining a seating position of the first user in the vehicle, determining whether to include video in the presentation of the portion via the second computing device (Para. 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the common knowledge purpose of allowing users to receive content safely in various locations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUNAL LANGHNOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
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.
/KUNAL LANGHNOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425