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 .
1. This is in response to communication filed on 9/09/24 in which claims 1-15 are pending.
Double Patenting
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101365. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim the same media player device authentication technique that monitor the locations of media player devices to determine a pattern of device co-location with a primary device.
U.S. Patent No. 12,101365
U.S. Application No. 18/824785
1. An automated process to be performed by a streaming server that communicates with a first media device via a network, the automated process comprising:
receiving, by the streaming server from the first media player device via the network, authentication data associated with a first streaming account;
receiving, by the streaming server from the first media player device via the network, location data indicative of co-location between the first media player device and a second media player device; and selectively enabling media streaming to the first media player device based upon
(i) verifying the authentication data associated with the first streaming account and (ii) determining that the location data meets a threshold co-location criterion, wherein the threshold co-location criteria relates to an amount of time that the first and second media players are located in physical proximity to each other over a designated period of time,
and wherein the threshold co-location criterion is based upon a ratio of a first period of time that the first and second media player devices are co-located to a second period of time that the first and second media player devices are not co-located.
1. An automated process to be performed by a streaming server that communicates with a mobile media player device via a network, the automated process comprising:
authenticating, by the streaming server, a fixed position media player device operating at a fixed location to correspond with a streaming account;
subsequently receiving, by the streaming server, authentication data associated with the streaming account from the mobile media player device via the network;
receiving, by the streaming server via the network, authentication data and location data from the mobile media player, wherein the location data is indicative of a location of the mobile media player device; and selectively enabling media streaming to the mobile media player device based upon
(i) verifying that the authentication data is associated with the streaming account and (ii) determining that the location data received from the mobile media player device meets a threshold co-location criterion with the fixed location of the fixed position media player device.
9. The automated process of claim 1 wherein the threshold co-location criterion is based upon a ratio of a first period of time that the fixed position and mobile media player devices are co-located to a second period of time that the fixed position and mobile media player devices are not co-located.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of claims 1 and 9 of this present application in order to obtain the independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,1013.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-7 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being assigned by U.S. Publication No. 2022/0014915 to Chauhan.
a. As per claim 1, Chauhan teaches an automated process to be performed by a streaming server that communicates with a mobile media player device via a network, the automated process comprising: authenticating, by the streaming server, a fixed position media player device operating at a fixed location to correspond with a streaming account (See paragraph [0013], the user authentication request 124 may include a user identifier for the user 104 and/or other user identifiers for the other users in the household of the user 104. The user authentication request 124 may include data identifying a physical and/or logical location of the streaming device 102); subsequently receiving, by the streaming server, authentication data associated with the streaming account from the mobile media player device via the network (See paragraph [0011] ); receiving, by the streaming server via the network, authentication data and location data from the mobile media player, wherein the location data is indicative of a location of the mobile media player device (See paragraph [0018, 0020], ); and selectively enabling media streaming to the mobile media player device based upon (i) verifying that the authentication data is associated with the streaming account and (ii) determining that the location data received from the mobile media player device meets a threshold co-location criterion with the fixed location of the fixed position media player device (See paragraph [0020-0023]).
b. As per claim 11, Chauhan teaches a data processing system that communicates with a mobile media player device via a network, the data processing system comprising:
an interface to the network (See paragraph [0012]); a processor (See paragraph [0037]);
and a non-transitory data storage having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the data processing system to perform an automated process comprising: initially authenticating, by the streaming server, a fixed position media player device operating at a fixed location to correspond with a streaming account (See paragraph [0013], the user authentication request 124 may include a user identifier for the user 104 and/or other user identifiers for the other users in the household of the user 104. The user authentication request 124 may include data identifying a physical and/or logical location of the streaming device 102); subsequently receiving, by the streaming server, authentication data associated with the streaming account from the mobile media player device via the network (See paragraph [0011]); receiving, by the streaming server via the network, authentication data and location data from the mobile media player, wherein the location data is indicative of a location of the mobile media player device (See paragraph [0018 and 0020]); and selectively enabling media streaming to the mobile media player device based upon (i) verifying that the authentication data is associated with the streaming account and (ii) determining that the location data received from the mobile media player device meets a threshold co-location criterion with the fixed location of the fixed position media player device (See paragraph [0020-0023]).
c. As per claims 2 and 12, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Chauhan teaches wherein the location data received from the mobile media player device further indicates a colocation time between the mobile media player device and a third media device (See paragraph [0046 and 0082], more than one subscriber device).
d. As per claims 3 and 13, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Chauhan teaches further comprising selectively enabling media streaming to the third media player device based upon (i) determining that media streaming to the mobile media player device is enabled based upon the threshold co-location criterion with the fixed-location media player device (See paragraph [0018 and 0031], the credential manager 136 may provide a request to the mobility manager 132 to determine whether there are any subscriber devices or other devices that are within a threshold distance (e.g., fifteen meters) of the GPS location of the streaming device 102. In this case, if a GPS location of a subscriber device is within the threshold distance of the GPS location of the streaming device 102, then the subscriber device is near the streaming device 102; ) ii) verifying that second authentication data received from the third media player device is associated with the streaming account (See paragraph [0037]); and (iii) determining that the colocation time between the mobile media player device and the third media player device meets a second co-location criterion (See paragraph [0030-0031 and 0046]).
e. As per claims 4 and 14, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Chauhan teaches further wherein the third media device is not co-located with the fixed position media player device (See paragraph [0018]).
f. As per claims 5 and 15, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Chauhan teaches wherein the third media device is configured to provide media streaming content to a television set at a location other than the fixed position (See paragraph [0084]).
g. As per claim 6, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Chauhan teaches wherein the fixed location media player device is configured to provide media content to a television set (See paragraph [0012]).
h. As per claim 7, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Chauhan teaches wherein the fixed location media player device is a smart television (See paragraph [0012]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0014915 to Chauhan in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0168071 to Ahmed et al.
a. As per claim 8, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Chauhan fails to explicitly teach further comprising selectively disabling the media streaming to the mobile media player device if the location data does not meet the threshold co-location criterion even when the authentication data associated with the streaming account is verified.
Ahmed et al teaches further comprising selectively disabling the media streaming to the mobile media player device if the location data does not meet the threshold co-location criterion even when the authentication data associated with the streaming account is verified (See paragraph [0103]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Ahmed et al in the claimed invention of Chauhan et al in order to provide and maintain a secure connection among the multiple devices.
b. As per claim 10, Chauhan teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Chauhan fails to explicitly teach wherein the location data is based upon an internet protocol (IP) address of a local area network (LAN) used by the fixed position and mobile media player devices.
Ahmed et al teaches wherein the location data is based upon an internet protocol (IP) address of a local area network (LAN) used by the fixed position and mobile media player devices (See paragraph [0098, 0130]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Ahmed et al in the claimed invention of Chauhan et al in order to provide and deliver contents and services to users.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 9 is 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
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 2008/0141313 to Kato et al teaches Authentication Bootstrap by Network Support.
U.S. Publication No. 2014/0032635 to Pimmel et al teaches Method and Device for Establishing A Content Mirroring Session.
U.S. Publication No. 2015/0089222 to White et al teaches Securely Connecting Control Device to Target Device.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
/DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444