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 .
Response to Arguments
No Amendments were made.
Claims 1-20 are presently pending.
Applicant's arguments filed 23 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to Priority benefits and the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) (see Remarks, pgs. 6-7), the Examiner disagrees. Applicant points to Fig. 5 showing display screen 512 as displaying media from different sources and media guidance for one or more equipment devices as “disclosure of a combined displaying comprising interfaces for displaying media from multiple display devices”. As noted in the Non-Final Rejection mailed out on 23 December 2025 (hereinafter the Non-Final) pgs. 3-4 and pg. 6, the issue at hand is that the claims specifically recite “causing, by the media server, the first device and the second device to each generate for display a combined display comprising: (a) a first interface for displaying media from a first source type; and (b) a second interface for displaying media from a second source type”. The grammatical construction of the claim limitation specifies that both the first device and the second device must generate for display (i.e., output) a combined display that includes two different interfaces from two different source types.
Going by the disclosure of Fig. 5 in the instant specification [079-86], electronic devices 504, 506, or 508 (i.e., first and second devices of the claim) may establish a communication session with and send data, such as media guidance data, to be displayed on display 512 of television 502 via control circuitry 510 (i.e., the claimed server). [085-86] notes that control circuitry 510 may receive data from several portable devices (i.e., first and second source types) to provide a combined display 512 of TV equipment 502. However, TV equipment 502 is NOT equivalent to the first or second devices of the claimed invention which are serving as the sources of the combined display. At no point does the disclosure ever specify that the first or second devices (i.e., the disclosed electronic devices 504, 506, or 508) ever respectively also display the combined display. Rather, the instant specification only provides support that a device other than the first or second devices generates for display a combined display (i.e., neither first or second device is disclosed as outputting a similar display 512), and merely being the sources of the respective first and second interfaces fails to read on the claimed limitation that requires that both first and second devices ‘generate for display’ – i.e., output – such a screen that comprises the interfaces from each respective device. Although Applicant points to [043] as stating that various user equipment may be utilized to access media content and the media guidance application, the passage is silent with regard to showing a combined display on each user equipment, and indeed seems to otherwise contradict the purported benefit of the invention to utilize a larger display device such as a television to more easily view content of a user’s portable electronic device (see [010]). Applicant’s statement (emphasis added) that ‘the present application provides disclosure for multiple devices each displaying the combined display” is thus unsupported by the instant Specification. As such, the present Application fails to comply with 35 USC 120, and stands rejected under 35 USC112 (a).
Regarding Applicant’s Arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(b) (see Remarks, pg. 7, ¶4), Applicant’s arguments have provided clarification to the intended scope and definition of the claim language, and is persuasive. As such, the rejection of the Claims under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 (see Remarks, pgs. 7-8), the Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that White shows “a single interface with sections for recordings and a watchlist, not different interfaces”, not different interfaces as claimed (see Remarks. Pg. 8). The Claims at present require a combined display the comprises a first interface for displaying media from a first source type, and a second interface for displaying media from a second source type’. The Examiner notes that the claimed ‘combined display’ fails to require that both interfaces be concurrently displayed, nor do the claims specify what comprises a ‘source type’. At best, the first and second source types have respective ‘lists’ upon which media may be added to. The interface of White (see Non-Final, pg. 11) shows an EPG that has a plurality of different screens for various categories of media assets. Under BRI, such different screens could be considered to be different interfaces (i.e., a Recordings interface and a Recommendations interface), and where such different groupings of media assets could reasonably read on being different sources types (i.e., recorded content vs. broadcast/live content, etc.). As such, given the BRI of the recited claim limitations, the combination of Ellis and White disclose, teach, and suggest all of the limitations of the claimed invention.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application Nos. 18/660634, 17/985299, 17/477880, 17/032563, 16/248383, 15/463823, 15/359107, 15/221333, 14/641829, 14/047495, 12/144434, and 61/061185, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Namely, the instant application recites (emphasis added): “causing, by the media server, the first device and the second device to each generate for display a combined display comprising: (a) a first interface for displaying media from a first source type; and (b) a second interface for displaying media from a second source type”. The instant Specification [065] states that users of user equipment may utilize their media guidance application to access media content, including navigating the application to locate the desirable content at home or outside of the home. The instant Specification [066]-[069] and [082]-[087] with respect to [Fig. 5] shows an embodiment where multiple portable devices may communicate with a television equipment 502, such that the television equipment 502 may receive media or guidance data from the respective portable devices to provide a combined display with multiple content.
However, the claims at present recite that each of the first device and second device display such a combined display which is not sufficiently supported by the above.
Additionally, [031], with reference to [Figs. 1, 2, 7-9] describe embodiments of various display screens that may be presented as part of a media guidance application that may include media listings and options that may be fully or partially overlaid over displayed media content. Furthermore, [092] recites that a ‘record options’ overlay may be overlaid on a display such as shown in [Fig. 7], and [096] recites that an ‘recommendation’ overlay may be provided over the display screen. However, none of these disclosures sufficiently disclose or show an ‘updated combined displayed’ with two interfaces including first and second media content identifiers as required by the last limitation of the claimed invention. [Fig. 1] at best shows a single interface listing content sources, but content identifiers are only shown for one ‘content source type’ [032-34] arguably has a variety of channels which could be considered ‘different content source types’ each with content identifiers, but such an interpretation would ultimately contradict the limitations of dependent Claims 2-4 and 12-15 which describe what the different ‘source types’ may comprise. [Fig. 2] shows a mosaic-based alternative, but again, at best show content identifiers of a single source type (broadcast type listings, 206, 208, 210, 212), and other source types being selectable in options 202 with no content identifiers included. [Fig. 7] shows an embodiment where a recording option overlay may be presented on top of the EPG screen of [Fig. 1], but again, fails to disclose such an interface displaying any selected content identifiers in addition to identifiers of a different content source type. [Fig. 8] shows a screen that may display a list of previously recorded contents to allow for viewing or deletion. However, this embodiment still fails to show a ‘combined display’ comprising first and second interfaces with respective identifiers of ‘added’ source types. [Fig. 9] shows a screen that may display a list of recommendations, but this embodiment as well fails to show a ‘combined display’ comprising first and second interfaces with respective identifiers of ‘added’ source types.
As the term ‘combined display’ suggests that both interfaces be displayed concurrently, it cannot be said that the prior Applications (nor current disclosure) adequately or sufficiently supports the invention as claimed in the instant application. As such, the Effective Filing Date of the instant application will be considered to be the actual filing date of 25 September 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite (emphasis added): “causing, by the media server, the first device and second device to each generate for display a combined display comprising: (a) a first interface for displaying media from a first source type; and (b) a second interface for displaying media from a second source type” and “based at least in part on the receiving the first selection and the second selection, causing, by the media server, the first device and the second device to each generate for display an updated combined display comprising: (a) the first interface that includes an identifier of the first media content; and (b) a second interface that includes an identifier of the second media content”. As noted above with respect to Priority benefits, these limitations are insufficiently supported by the instant or parent disclosures, particularly with respect to a plurality of devices that each generate for display (i.e., both the first and second devices perform this step) a combined display comprising first and second interfaces (i.e., some display/screen that includes both first and second interfaces simultaneously), and where the combined display comprises first and second interfaces which both include respective content identifiers (i.e., respective media content names/titles are included in both interfaces). As noted above, at best the disclosure describes a TV/display device that may display content from a plurality of portable devices in a split-screen manner, where the respective split screens may be interacted with via the respective portable devices, but fails to extend that such split-screen capability extends to other devices. The disclosure at best also describes a variety of different interfaces for displaying media from different source types such as a recordings list, favorites list, etc., within an EPG interface, and where multi-device users may affect changes to these settings on one devices and affect the same changes on other devices through a shared profile. However, such disclosure fails to ever disclose where such interfaces are concurrently displayed excepting the option to switch between one category or the other, much less concurrently displayed to include respective media content identifiers.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis et al. (US 2005/0251827 A1) (hereinafter Ellis), in view of White et al. (US 2009/0178083 A1) (hereinafter White).
Regarding Claim 1, Ellis discloses a method performed in a system,
wherein the system [Figs. 1-2, 5, 7a, 7b, 7d, 12, 23-26 comprises:
(a) a media server configured to provide for display guidance data for consumption of media content; [0015, 0060-67: server may be utilized to provide program guide (EPG) data and functionality to plurality of user equipment devices in client-server system]
(b) a first device logged into a first session with the media server; [0015, 0060-67: server may be utilized to provide EPG data and functionality to plurality of user equipment devices in client-server system (where such systems implicitly disclose a session); 0094: users may log on to program guide] and
(c) a second device logged into a second session with the media server; [0015, 0060-67: server may be utilized to provide EPG data and functionality to plurality of user equipment devices; (where such systems implicitly disclose a session); 0094: users may log on to program guide]
the method comprising:
causing, by the media server, the first device and the second device to each generate for display [Fig. 12; 0009-13: system where user may adjust EPG settings at one user equipment device and implement it on each other piece of user equipment] comprising:
(a) a first interface for displaying media from a first source type; [Fig. 12; 0011, 0069: EPG features may include setting program reminders, program recording features, favorites, parent settings, etc.] and
(b) a second interface for displaying media from a second source type; [Fig. 12; 0011, 0069: EPG features may include setting program reminders, program recording features, favorites, parent settings, etc.]
receiving, by the media server, from the first device a first selection of a first media content to be added to a first list associated with the first source type; [0011-13, 0069, 0112-115: EPG features may include setting program reminders, program recording features, favorites, parent settings, etc., where user may be allowed to select programs to add to such various settings]
receiving, by the media server, from the second device a second selection of a second media content to be added to a second list associated with the second source type; [0011, 0069, 0112-115: EPG features may include setting program reminders, program recording features, favorites, parent settings, etc., where user may be allowed to select programs to add to such various settings] and
based at least in part on the receiving the first selection and the second selection, causing, by the media server, the first device and the second device to each generate for display an updated display [Fig. 2; 0009-13, 0069: multiple EPGs on different devices are coordinated such that EPG settings adjusted at one device are effected on a second device] comprising:
(a) the first interface that includes an identifier of the first media content; [Fig. 2; 0009-13, 0069: multiple EPGs on different devices are coordinated such that EPG settings adjusted at one device are effected on a second device] and
(b) the second interface that includes an identifier of the second media content. [Fig. 2; 0009-13, 0069: multiple EPGs on different devices are coordinated such that EPG settings adjusted at one device are effected on a second device]
Ellis fails to explicitly disclose a combined display.
White, in analogous art, teaches a combined display. [Figs. 4-7; 0040-42, 0045, 0051-53, 0063-64: EPG may provide a My TV feature that may provide different groupings of media assets (i.e., different interfaces), such as Recordings, Watchlist, Recommendations, etc.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Ellis with the teachings of White to specify a combined display of the first and second interfaces so as to provide personalized media guidance screens in an enhanced and logically ordered manner. [White – 0002-9]
Regarding Claim 2, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Ellis and White disclose wherein the first source type is a plurality of favorite programs, and wherein the second source type is a plurality of DVR content. [Ellis – 0011, 0069: EPG features may include setting program reminders, program recording features, favorites, parent settings, etc.; White – Figs. 4-7]
Regarding Claim 3, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Ellis and White disclose wherein the first source type is a plurality of watchlist content, and wherein the second source type is a plurality of DVR content. [Ellis – 0011, 0069: EPG features may include setting program reminders, program recording features, favorites, parent settings, etc.; White – Figs. 4-7]
Regarding Claim 4, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Ellis and White disclose wherein the first source type is a plurality of favorite programs, and wherein the second source type is a plurality of network content for download. [Ellis – 0011, 0069: EPG features may include setting program reminders, program recording features, favorites, parent settings, etc.; White – Figs. 4-7; 0035-36, 0042, 0045: wherein content to be provided may include any on demand asset, or other retrievable media assets obtainable over the internet (i.e., downloadable via a network)]
Regarding Claim 5, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Ellis and White disclose wherein the first source type is a plurality of watchlist content, and wherein the second source type is a plurality of network content for download. [Ellis – 0011, 0069: EPG features may include setting program reminders, program recording features, favorites, parent settings, etc.; White – Figs. 4-7; 0035-36, 0042, 0045: wherein content to be provided may include any on demand asset, or other retrievable media assets obtainable over the internet (i.e., downloadable via a network), and a watchlist]
Regarding Claim 6, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Ellis and White disclose wherein the first interface at least partially overlays the second interface. [Ellis – 0111: where certain interfaces may be overlaid at least in part over other portions of the screen; White – Figs. 4-7]
Regarding Claim 7, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Ellis and White disclose wherein the first interface is caused to be generated for display in a first region of the combined display, and wherein the second interface is caused to be generated for display in a second region of the combined display. [Ellis – 0011, 0069: EPG features may include setting program reminders, program recording features, favorites, parent settings, etc.; White – Figs. 4-7]
Regarding Claim 8, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Ellis and White disclose wherein the first device comprises a first display and wherein the second device comprises a second display, wherein a first size of the first display differs from a second size of the second display. [Ellis – Figs. 1, 3-10; 0012, 0062-64: user equipment 44 which may be a STB or any other suitable television equipment such as a C/TV; White – 0023, 0052-53: where user equipment may be any suitable television equipment or PCTV, and may include portable electronic devices, where screen of portable devices may be smaller than a television or computer monitor]
Regarding Claim 9, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Ellis and White disclose wherein the first session and the second session are each associated with a profile, further comprising: in response to receiving the first selection, updating the profile to comprise a first identifier of the first media content; and in response to receiving the second selection, updating the profile to comprise a second identifier of the second media content. [Ellis – 0009-13, 0069, 0112-115: system where user may adjust EPG settings at one user equipment device and implement it on each other piece of user equipment, where user may be allowed to select programs to add to such various settings; 0011, 0069, 0112: profiles may be established to customize the viewing experience; White – 0038: log-in procedures may be required to view personalized screens]
Regarding Claim 10, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Ellis and White disclose wherein the media server receives the first selection and the second selection over the Internet via a network connection of the media server.[Ellis – Figs. 1, 8; 0084: where server may connect to user equipment via Internet; White – Fig. 1; 0022, 0034: user equipment may connect and communicate with servers, etc. via any network connection, including Internet]
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 recites a system that performs the method described in Claim 1. As such, Claim 11 is analyzed and rejected similarly as Claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 12, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 11 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Claim 12 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 2 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 13, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 11 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Claim 13 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 3 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 14, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 11 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Claim 14 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 4 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 15, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 11 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Claim 15 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 5 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 16, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 11 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Claim 16 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 6 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 17, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 11 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Claim 17 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 7 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 18, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 11 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Claim 18 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 8 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 19, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 11 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Claim 19 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 9 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 20, Ellis and White disclose all of the limitations of Claim 11 which are analyzed as previously discussed before.
Furthermore, Claim 20 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 10 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/WILLIAM J KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights