0DETAILED 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 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.
Claims Status
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10 and 12-15 are currently pending in the application.
Claims 3,5,11 and 16-19 have been cancelled.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 1-2, 4, 6-8,10 and 13-15 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5,7 and 9-13 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,901,690 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims 1-2, 4, 6-8,10 and 13-15 and Patent claims 1-5,7 and 9-13 are directed to the same invention with a different in scope (broader in scope than the patent claim) and are therefore an obvious variant thereof. The mapping of the claims as follows:
As to claim 1, are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpalatable over claim 1, 3, 5 and 9 of US 10,901,690 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the current application's claim and patented claim 1, 3, 5 and 9 directed to the same invention with a different in scope which is a broader in scope than the patented claim.
As to claim 2, are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpalatable over claim 1, 6 of US 10,901,690 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the current application's claim and patented claim 1, 6 directed to the same invention with a different in scope which is a broader in scope than the patented claim.
As to claim 4, are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpalatable over claim 5, 12 of US 10,901,690 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of the current application's claim and patented claim 5, 12 directed to the same invention with a different in scope which is a broader in scope than the patented claim.
As to claim 6, are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpalatable over claim 9, 13 of US 10,901,690 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of the current application's claim and patented claim 9, 13 directed to the same invention with a different in scope which is a broader in scope than the patented claim.
As to claim 7, are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpalatable over claim 11 of US 10,901,690 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of the current application's claim and patented claim 11 directed to the same invention with a different in scope which is a broader in scope than the patented claim.
As to claim 8, are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpalatable over claim 11 of US 10,901,690 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the current application's claim and patented claim 11 directed to the same invention with a different in scope which is a broader in scope than the patented claim.
As to claim 10, are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpalatable over claim 4 of US 10,901,690 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of the current application's claim and patented claim 4 directed to the same invention with a different in scope which is a broader in scope than the patented claim.
As to claim 13, are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpalatable over claim 1,4, 5, 9 of US 10,901,690 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of the current application's claim and patented claim 1,4,5 and 9 directed to the same invention with a different in scope which is a broader in scope than the patented claim.
As to claim 14, are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpalatable over claim 10, 5, 9 of US 10,901,690 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of the current application's claim and patented claim 1,4,5 and 9 directed to the same invention with a different in scope which is a broader in scope than the patented claim.
However, the patented application fails explicitly discloses claims 9 and 12.
As to claim 9, The patented application fails explicitly discloses wherein the controller is configured to: when the expression referring to the broadcasting program currently displayed includes a person, display at least one content related to the person.
In a related art, CHA et al (US 20140195244 A1 ) discloses wherein the controller is configured to: when the expression referring to the broadcasting program currently displayed includes a person, display at least one content related to the person (see fig.11; page.18,¶0352-¶0354).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NAM and YUN with the teaching as taught by CHA in order to recommend a broadcasting program indicate an inquire about a broadcasting program where an actor/person appears.
As to claim 12, CHA further discloses wherein the controller is configured to: display the search result information by overlaying on the broadcasting program currently displayed (see fig.11).
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0123185 A1 to NAM in view US 2021/0056969 A1 to YUN.
As to claim 1, NAM discloses a display device (see fig.1 and 8) comprising: a display configured to display a broadcasting program (see fig.1, page.3,¶0046-¶0047¶); a microphone configured to receive a voice command from a user while the broadcasting program is displayed (see page.3,¶0055,¶0062); a network interface configured to communicate with a server system including at least one server (see fig.3;page.3,¶0066); and a controller configured to: receive the voice command including an expression referring to the broadcasting program currently displayed, transmit the voice command to the server, display, on the display, search result information based on intention analysis result information when a function corresponding to the intention analysis result information is not executable using program information stored in the display device, and perform a function corresponding to the intention analysis result information and display, on the display, performed result information when the function corresponding the intention analysis result information is executable using the program information stored in the display device, wherein the intention analysis result information is generated from the voice command by the server (see fig.3; page.5,¶0070-¶0074¶).
NAM fails explicitly discloses transmit the voice command to the natural language processing server and the intention analysis result information is generated from the voice command by the natural language processing.
YUN discloses transmit the voice command to the natural language processing server and the intention analysis result information is generated from the voice command by the natural language processing (see fig. 22-23; page.9,¶0123, ¶0128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NAM with the teaching as taught by YUN in order to reduce the range of the user command to be reviewed by using the determined program information, thereby improving the analysis speed.
As to claim 3, NAM further discloses wherein the server system includes a search server, and the controller configured to transmit the intention analysis result information to the search server (see page.9,¶0138).
As to claim 4, NAM further discloses wherein the controller is configured to: transmit the intention analysis result information to the search server when the function corresponding to the intention analysis result information is not executable using program information stored in the display device, and receive the search result information from the search server(see page.5,¶0073).
As to claim 6, NAM further discloses wherein the controller is configured to: acquire information on a broadcasting program corresponding to the intention analysis result information using the program information when the function corresponding the intention analysis result information is executable using the program information stored in the display device, and display, on the display, at least part of the acquired information on the broadcasting program(see page.5,¶0072).
As to claim 7, NAM further discloses wherein the information on the broadcasting program includes at least one of a broadcast time including a starting point and an end point of the broadcasting program, a title of the broadcasting program and a channel of the broadcasting program (see page.2,¶0019, ¶0060).
As to claim 8, NAM further discloses wherein the controller is configured to: display, on the display, a guide when receiving the voice command from the user (see page.5,¶0072).
As to claim 10, NAM further discloses comprising a wireless communication interface configured to receive the voice command from a remote controller (see fig.1-2; page.3,¶0055).
As to claim 13, NAM discloses a display device comprising a display configured to display a broadcasting program (see fig.1 and 8; page.3,¶0046-¶0047); a network interface configured communicate with a server system including at least one natural language processing server; and a controller configured to: receive a voice command from a user through a remote control device while the broadcasting program is displayed, the voice command includes an expression referring to the broadcasting program currently displayed (see page.3,¶0055,¶0062,¶0092), transmit the voice command to the server, display, on the display, search result information based on intention analysis result information when a function corresponding to the intention analysis result information is not executable using program information stored in the display device, and perform a function corresponding to the intention analysis result information and display, on the display, performed result information when the function corresponding the intention analysis result information is executable using the program information stored in the display device, wherein the intention analysis result information is generated from the voice command by the server (see fig.3; page.5,¶0070-¶0074).
NAM fails explicitly discloses transmit the voice command to the natural language processing server and the intention analysis result information is generated from the voice command by the natural language processing.
YUN discloses transmit the voice command to the natural language processing server and the intention analysis result information is generated from the voice command by the natural language processing (see fig. 22-23; page.9,¶0123, ¶0128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NAM with the teaching as taught by YUN in order to reduce the range of the user command to be reviewed by using the determined program information, thereby improving the analysis speed.
As to claim 14, NAM discloses a system comprising: a display device configured to: display, on a display, a broadcasting program, receive a voice command from a user while the broadcasting program is displayed, the voice command includes an expression referring to the broadcasting program currently displayed, transmit the voice command to a server(see fig.1 and 8; page.3,¶0046-¶0047,¶0055,¶0062), display, on the display, search result information based on intention analysis result information when a function corresponding to the intention analysis result information is not executable using program information stored in the display device, and perform a function corresponding to the intention analysis result information and display, on the display, performed result information when the function corresponding the intention analysis result information is executable using the program information stored in the display device(see fig.3; page.5,¶0070-¶0074).
NAM fails explicitly discloses transmit the voice command to a natural language processing server and wherein the intention analysis result information is generated from the voice command by the natural language processing server; and the natural language processing server configured to: receive, from the display device, the voice command.
YUN discloses transmit the voice command to a natural language processing server and wherein the intention analysis result information is generated from the voice command by the natural language processing server; and the natural language processing server configured to: receive, from the display device, the voice command (see fig. 22-23; page.9,¶0123, ¶0128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NAM with the teaching as taught by YUN in order to reduce the range of the user command to be reviewed by using the determined program information, thereby improving the analysis speed.
As to claim 15, NAM further discloses a search server configured to: receive the intention analysis result information from the display device (see page.9,¶0138, ¶0141).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0123185 A1 to NAM in view US 2021/0056969 A1 to YUN, and further in view of US 20140195244 A1 to CHA et al.
As to claim 9, NAM and YUN fail explicitly discloses wherein the controller is configured to: when the expression referring to the broadcasting program currently displayed includes a person, display at least one content related to the person.
CHA discloses wherein the controller is configured to: when the expression referring to the broadcasting program currently displayed includes a person, display at least one content related to the person (see fig.11; page.18,¶0352-¶0354).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NAM and YUN with the teaching as taught by CHA in order to recommend a broadcasting program indicate an inquire about a broadcasting program where an actor/person appears.
As to claim 12, CHA further discloses wherein the controller is configured to: display the search result information by overlaying on the broadcasting program currently displayed (see fig.11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MULUGETA MENGESHA whose telephone number is (469)295-9212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
MULUGETA MENGESHA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/Mulugeta Mengesha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights