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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment After Non-Final Rejection filed 01/16/2026. Claims 2-4, 6-14 and 16-23 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-14 and 16-23 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.
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 2-4, 6-9, 12-14, 16-19, 22 and 23 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,128,931 in view of Schultz et al. (US 2012/0047529), herein Schultz.
Application No. 18/883,528
U.S. Patent No. 11,128,931
2. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
1. A method comprising:
causing media content to be displayed at a device of a first user;
a display of the media item
identifying a message of a second user associated with the first user based at least in part on a screen size of the device, wherein the message is related to the supplemental content; and
parsing metadata for a media item to obtain product information about the media item;
searching a database for a product associated with the media item based on the product information;
determining an average rating of the product;
obtaining a first review for the product corresponding to the average rating from the database; and
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a text length available for an overlay over the media item; and determining whether the portion of the first review exceeds the text length available for the overlay.
10. The method of claim 7, wherein the text length is determined based on at least one of a screen size of a device displaying the media item or user preference data for a text size.
based at least in part on the identifying of the message, causing the device to simultaneously display the supplemental content and at least a portion of the message
overlaying a portion of the first review in a display of the media item without receiving a user input.
However, the patented claims do not explicitly teach identifying supplemental content to be displayed at the device of the first user during a break in the media content; and displaying the supplemental content and at least a portion of the message during the break in the media content.
In an analogous art, Schultz, which discloses a system for video distribution, clearly teaches identifying supplemental content to be displayed at the device of the first user during a break in the media content; (Fig. 3: A targeted advertisement is selected and displayed to the user, [0027].) and displaying the supplemental content and at least a portion of the message during the break in the media content. (Fig. 4: The rating information is added to the displayed advertisement, [0031].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claims by identifying supplemental content to be displayed at the device of the first user during a break in the media content; and displaying the supplemental content and at least a portion of the message during the break in the media content, as taught by Schultz, for the benefit of displaying the message during an advertisement break in the media content.
Claim 3 of the application corresponds to claim 3 of the patent in view of Schultz.
Claim 4 of the application corresponds to claims 1, 7, 10 of the patent in view of Schultz [0023], [0029], [0032].
Claim 6 of the application corresponds to claim 9 of the patent in view of Schultz.
Claim 7 of the application corresponds to claims 1, 7, 10 of the patent in view of Schultz [0027].
Claim 8 of the application corresponds to claim 3 of the patent in view of Schultz.
Claim 9 of the application corresponds to claims 1, 7, 10 of the patent in view of Schultz.
Claim 12 of the application corresponds to claims 11, 17, 20 of the patent in view of Schultz [0027], [0031].
Claim 13 of the application corresponds to claim 13 of the patent in view of Schultz.
Claim 14 of the application corresponds to claims 11, 17, 20 of the patent in view of Schultz [0023], [0029], [0032].
Claim 16 of the application corresponds to claim 19 of the patent in view of Schultz.
Claim 17 of the application corresponds to claims 11, 17, 20 of the patent in view of Schultz [0027].
Claim 18 of the application corresponds to claim 13 of the patent in view of Schultz.
Claim 19 of the application corresponds to claims 11, 17, 20 of the patent in view of Schultz.
Claim 22 of the application corresponds to claims 10 of the patent in view of Schultz.
Claim 23 of the application corresponds to claims 20 of the patent in view of Schultz.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 20 and 21 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 11 is allowable because the prior art fails to teach or suggest a method comprising: of causing media content to be displayed at a device of a first user; identifying supplemental content to be displayed at the device of the first user during a break in the media content; identifying a message of a second user associated with the first user, wherein the message is related to the supplemental content, and wherein the identifying the message of the second user associated with the first user comprises: determining that a rating for a user profile associated with the second user is greater than each of a plurality of other ratings for a plurality of other user profiles associated with the supplemental content; and based at least in part on the identifying of the message, causing the device to simultaneously display the supplemental content and at least a portion of the message during the break in the media content, as recited in the claims.
The closest prior art, Schultz et al. (US 2012/0047529), discloses overlaying user reviews onto and advertisement displayed to a first user. However, Schultz et al. does not disclose identifying the message based on user profile ratings as claimed. Schultz et al. either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render the above limitations obvious.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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 JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425