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 (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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/26/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-final rejection on 10/29/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 had been cancelled previously.
Claims 14-16 have been newly added.
Claims 2-16 are pending.
The objection of the claims has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The Double patenting is maintained.
The rejection under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments in the Remarks filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument (page 9), Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Panchaksharaiah discloses simultaneously displaying content of a live media 206 at a timestamp 25:15 and content of a catch-up media 204 at a timestamp 15:10 (Figure 2), the catch-up media corresponds to a previously broadcast segment of the live media (¶ [0006], ¶ [0051] and ¶ [0147]). Panchaksharaiah discloses simultaneously monitoring a relative importance of concurrently presented events from the live media 206 and from the catch-up media 204 (¶ [0007]-[0009], ¶ [0015]-[0017], ¶ [0055] and ¶ [0148]) by performing image processing on a first frame retrieved for displaying content of the live media 206 and on a second frame retrieved for displaying content of the catch-up media 204 simultaneously to identify and rank relevance of objects in the first and second retrieved frames in order to determine a higher ranked frame associated with a higher ranked event of the detected events (¶ [0010], ¶ [0079]-[0084] and ¶ [0154]-0158]).
Panchaksharaiah discloses the image processing on subsequent frames of contents of the catch-up and live media keep going on every 10 seconds (see step 1020 in Figure 10 and ¶ [0161]), and the events are identified based on time-marks in the play length of audio-visual media (¶ [0053] and ¶ [0063]), meaning that the events in the catch-up media and the live media are detected in a chronological order of the play length of displaying content. With that in mind, the displaying content of the catch-up media 204 at timestamp 15:10 compared to the current timestamp 25:15 of the live media 206 is the “content between the delayed portion of the live content stream and a live position of the live content stream”; one of detected events in the catch-up media 206 is the “at least one intermediate event”, and the detected event in the live media 206 at timestamp 25:15 is “a live event in the live position of the live content stream”.
Therefore, the teaching of Panchaksharaiah in view of Dimov still broadest reasonably meets the new limitations in amended claims.
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.
Claims 2-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 51, 53, 57, 60, 62, 66 and 69-70 of copending Application No. 17/734,430 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The claims differ in scope since the instant application claim 2 is broader in every aspect than the reference application claim 51, and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 2 of the instant application is anticipated by the patent claim 51 in that claim 51 of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application. Claim 2 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claim 3 corresponds to the reference application claim 57.
Claim 4 corresponds to the reference application claim 51.
Claim 5 corresponds to the reference application claim 53.
Claim 6 corresponds to the reference application claim 60.
Claim 7 corresponds to the reference application claim 66.
Claim 8 corresponds to the reference application claim 60.
Claim 9 corresponds to the reference application claim 62.
Claim 10 corresponds to the reference application claim 69.
Claim 11 corresponds to the reference application claim 70.
Claim 12 corresponds to the reference application claim 69.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 11, 18 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,067. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 2, the instant application claim 2 and the US patent claims 1 and 9 are both drawn to the same invention.
The claims differ in scope since the instant application claim 2 is broader in every aspect than the patent claims 1 and 9, and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 2 of the instant application is anticipated by the patent claims 1 and 9 in that claims 1 and 9 of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application. Claim 2 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claim 4 corresponds to the patent claim 20.
Claim 6 corresponds to the patent claims 11 and 18.
Claim 8 corresponds to the patent claim 11.
Claim 10 corresponds to the patent claims 1 and 9.
Claim 12 corresponds to the patent claim 20.
Claims 2-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 17 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,350,172. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The claims differ in scope since the instant application claim 2 and claim 14 is broader in every aspect than the patent claim 1, and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claims 2 and 14 of the instant application is anticipated by the patent claim 1 in that claim 1 of the patent contains all the limitations of claims 2 and 14 of the instant application. Claims 2 and 14 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claim 3 corresponds to the patent claim 7.
Claim 4 corresponds to the patent claim 1.
Claim 5 corresponds to the patent claim 9.
Claims 6 and 15 correspond to the patent claim 11.
Claim 7 corresponds to the patent claim 17.
Claim 8 corresponds to the patent claim 11.
Claim 9 corresponds to the patent claim 19.
Claims 10 and 16 correspond to the patent claim 1.
Claim 11 corresponds to the patent claim 7.
Claim 12 corresponds to the patent claim 1.
Claim 13 corresponds to the patent claim 9.
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.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panchaksharaiah et al (US 2017/0332036) in view of Dimov et al (US 9788062).
Regarding claim 2, Panchaksharaiah discloses a method comprising:
playing a delayed portion of a live content stream (¶ [0006], ¶ [0038], ¶ [0049] and ¶ [0051] for playing a buffered portion of a live media at a time after an original broadcast time of the live media stream);
analyzing content between the delayed portion of the live content stream and a live position of the live content stream to detect at least one intermediate event; detecting a live event in the live position of the live content stream; determining a respective rank for each of the at least one detected intermediate event and the live event in the live position of the live content stream (Figure 2; ¶ [0006], ¶ [0051] and ¶ [0147] for simultaneously displaying content of a live media 206 at a timestamp 25:15 and content of a catch-up media 204 at a timestamp 15:10; the catch-up media corresponds to a previously broadcast segment of the live media; ¶ [0007]-[0009], ¶ [0015]-[0017], ¶ [0055] and ¶ [0148] for simultaneously monitoring a relative importance of concurrently presented events from the live media 206 and from the catch-up media 204; ¶ [0010], ¶ [0079]-[0084] and ¶ [0154]-0158] for performing image processing on a first frame retrieved for displaying content of the live media 206 and on a second frame retrieved for displaying content of the catch-up media 204 simultaneously to identify and rank relevance of objects in the first and second retrieved frames in order to determine a highest ranked frame associated with a highest ranked event of the detected events; see step 1020 in Figure 10 and ¶ [0161] for the image processing on subsequent frames of contents of the catch-up and live media keep going on every 10 seconds; and ¶ [0053] and ¶ [0063] for the events are identified based on time-marks in the play length of audio-visual media. It means that the events in the catch-up media and the live media are detected in a chronological order of the play length of displaying content. With that in mind, the displaying content of the catch-up media 204 at timestamp 15:10 compared to the current timestamp 25:15 of the live media 206 is the “content between the delayed portion of the live content stream and a live position of the live content stream”; one of detected events in analyzing content of catch-up media 206 is the “at least one intermediate event”, and the detected event in the live media 206 at timestamp 25:15 is “a live event in the live position of the live content stream”); and
based at least in part on determining that a highest-ranked event of (a) the at least one detected intermediate event, and (b) the detected live event is the live event: generating for display the delayed portion of the live content stream in different size windows overlaid to the live position of the live content stream (Figures 2-4; ¶ [0038] and ¶ [0050]-[0051] for the live media is depicted in a full screen mode on display having an overlay of the catch-up media in different size windows based on detected event with a highest rank; and ¶ [0039]-[0040], ¶ [0055] and ¶ [0092]-[0093] for allowing a user to navigate or toggle between the live media and the catch-up media in response to determining a change in importance of detected concurrently-presented events from the live media and from the catch-up media).
Panchaksharaiah is silent about generating for display a navigation menu comprising an option to shift to the playing of the delayed portion of the live content stream to the live position of the live content stream.
Dimov discloses determining respective ranks of each of the at least one detected event using a predetermined importance threshold (Col 3 line 50 through Col 4 line 20); and generating for display a navigation menu comprising an option to shift to the playing of the delayed portion of the live content stream to the live position of the live content stream (Figure 3; Col 12 lines 24-56 for displaying along a program timeline one or more visual cues or indicators to alert user to detected exciting portions of the program and to allow the user to navigate or shift to exciting portion which exceeds a threshold of the broadcasting program, meaning that generating for display a program timeline served as a navigation menu with option to shift the playing to any desired program portions of broadcasting program).
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 Panchaksharaiah system with the teaching of Dimov, so to provide an alternative way of presenting a navigation menu of options to shift the playing to desired content at any time in the benefits of enhancing user viewing experience.
Regarding claim 3, Panchaksharaiah in view of Dimov discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 2. The combined system further discloses generating a respective event identifier, a respective rank, and a respective time segment information for each of the at least one detected intermediate event and the detected live event; and storing the respective event identifier, the respective rank, and the respective time segment information for each of the at least one detected intermediate event and the detected live event in memory for subsequent analysis of the at least one intermediate detected event and the detected live event (taught by Dimov; Col 5 lines 14-62, Col 7 lines 41-51, Col 12 lines 32-67 and Col 13 lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 5, Panchaksharaiah in view of Dimov discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 2. The combined system further discloses wherein the analyzing content between the delayed portion of the live content stream and the live position of the live content stream is based at least in part on determining that an amount of time that has elapsed since a most recent analysis of the live content stream is greater than a threshold content analysis repetition period (taught by Panchaksharaiah; see step 1020 in Figure 10 and step 1116 in Figure 11; ¶ [0161] and ¶ [0169]).
Regarding claim 6, all functionalities of a system in claim 6 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claim 2.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, all limitations of claims 7 and 9 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claims 3 and 5 respectively.
Regarding claims 10-11 and 13, all limitations of claims 10-11 and 13 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claims 2-3 and 5 respectively.
Regarding claim 14, Panchaksharaiah in view of Dimov discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 2. The combined system further discloses in response to receiving user interface input of the option to shift the playing of the delayed portion of the live content stream to the live position of the live content stream: shifting the playing of the delayed portion of the live content stream to the live position of the live content stream; and subsequent to playing the live event in the live position of the live content stream: automatically generating for display the at least one detected intermediate event (taught by Panchaksharaiah; ¶ [0020] and ¶ [0093]-[0094]; and taught by Dimov; Col 5 lines 14-24).
Regarding claims 15-16, all limitations of claims 15-16 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8 and 12 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
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 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 GIGI L DUBASKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/GIGI L DUBASKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights