Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 03/23/2026 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.
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 19-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPG_Pub. 20150382079 to Lister, in view of USPG_Pub. 20150317341 to Barker.
Regarding claim 19, Lister discloses a method comprising: obtaining an audio video stream to be made searchable with natural language commands (fig. 4, 404; Para. 74 (a spoken user request can be received that is associated with an event in a media stream-the spoken request is a natural language command));
generating, in response to said obtaining, an index in which each event of a plurality of events occurring throughout the audio video stream is associated with (i) a corresponding portion of the audio video stream (Para. 75 (virtual assistant response that causes playback to commence based on an event in a media stream is the control signal)) and (ii) an elapsed time of the audio video stream (fig. 5, 514, 516; Para. 71 (each event 516 is associated with a time that has passed since the beginning of the media stream 514)); and storing the index in a repository (Para. 73 (stream and data feed received stored at server 114 incorporation into knowledge base/database)).
Lister does not explicitly disclose index including elapsed time of the event.
Barker discloses index including elapsed time of the event (fig. 4; Para. 39).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the index of Lister to include elapsed time of the event as disclosed by Barker in order to be able to search and retrieve events according to the game clock instead of the absolute time.
Regarding claim 20, Lister in view of Barker discloses the method, wherein the index is generated in real time as the audio video stream is obtained, as part of an ongoing and continuous process, in the form of a live stream (Lister: Para. 65).
Regarding claim 21, Lister discloses the method, wherein the index is generated in response to the audio video stream, in the form of a complete recording, being retrieved from the repository (Lister: Para. 24-25, 73 (retrieval from knowledgebase database)).
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 1-21 and 23-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,075,126. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are similar and/or broader variations of the claims of the 126’ parent patent.
Claim 1 of the application corresponds to claim 12 of the parent patent.
Claim 2 of the application corresponds to claim 17 of the parent patent.
Claim 3 of the application corresponds to claim 24 of the parent patent (sequential playback of adjacent segments means end of first is start of second in the sequence).
Claim 4 of the application corresponds to claim 1 of the parent patent.
Claim 5 of the application corresponds to claim 2 of the parent patent.
Claim 6 of the application corresponds to claim 4 of the parent patent.
Claim 7 of the application corresponds to claim 3 of the parent patent.
Claim 8 of the application corresponds to claim 6 of the parent patent.
Claim 9 of the application corresponds to claim 7 of the parent patent.
Claim 10 of the application corresponds to claim 24 of the parent patent.
Claim 11 of the application corresponds to claim 22 of the parent patent.
Claim 12 of the application corresponds to claim 8 of the parent patent.
Claim 13 of the application corresponds to claim 9 of the parent patent.
Claim 14 of the application corresponds to claim 11 of the parent patent.
Claim 15 of the application corresponds to claim 13 of the parent patent.
Claim 16 of the application corresponds to claim 14 of the parent patent.
Claim 17 of the application corresponds to claim 15 of the parent patent.
Claim 18 of the application corresponds to claim 16 of the parent patent.
Claim 19 of the application corresponds to claim 1 of the parent patent.
Claim 20 of the application corresponds to claim 15 of the parent patent.
Claim 21 of the application corresponds to claim 16 of the parent patent.
Claim 23 of the application corresponds to claim 22 of the parent patent.
Claim 24 of the application corresponds to claim 19 of the parent patent.
Claim 25 of the application corresponds to claim 20 of the parent patent.
Claim 26 of the application corresponds to claim 21 of the parent patent.
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 ANTHONY BANTAMOI whose telephone number is (571)270-3581. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST..
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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/ANTHONY BANTAMOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights