Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Applicant is claiming benefit of (continuity) to the US applications 15/711,392 and 12/104,031 (Also indicated in the ADS 10/11/2024.
Applicant has further indicated in the ADS of 10/11/2024, under 37 CFR 1.55 or 1.78 statements, that instant Application contains a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, therefore, present Application is being examined under the first inventor to file provision 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 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.
Applicant is advised that the current claim set has not been disclosed in the Specification as originally filed. The filing date for the instant application, at best, may be set to 10/11/2024. See Rejection under 35 USC § 112 First paragraph below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. The current Abstract is not indicative of the invention as claimed.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite downloading a first portion/ second portion of a content. The Specification is directed to management of titles/ program recordings on a DVR. There is no mention of any division of a content to a first portion and/or second portion. Furthermore, there is no disclosure as to the identification of any device/ user and corresponding download of a specific portion of a content thereof. Therefore, it would require undue experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invwntion.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depend on claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, therefore, are rejected the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
(e) the invention was described in-
(1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent; or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English.
Claim 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Kinjo, USPGPUB 2003/0078966 (hereinafter “Kinjo”).
Regarding claim 1, Kinjo discloses a method comprising:
causing a content server to download a first portion of a content item to a first computing device (¶ [60]; The content is served via broadcast and/or internet. A PC may act as a home server to forward content to various TV sets where the portion is stored at the PC and/ or the digital TV itself);
updating a user profile to indicate output of the first portion of the content item (¶¶ [60]-[61]); and
based on information indicating that a user of the first computing device is associated with a second computing device, and based on the updated user profile, causing a second portion of the content item to be downloaded to the second computing device for output via the second computing device (¶¶ [61]-[63]). Further see Fig. 1, ¶¶ [43]-[74].
Regarding claim 2, Kinjo discloses (as analyzed in claim 1) wherein the causing the second portion of the content item to be downloaded to the second computing device comprises causing the second computing device to download the second portion of the content item from a content server (The content is served via broadcast and/or internet. A PC may act as a home server to forward content to various TV sets where the portion is stored at the PC and/ or the digital TV itself).
Regarding claim 5, Kinjo discloses wherein the causing the second portion of the content item to be downloaded to the second computing device is based on second information indicating the second computing device is entitled to access the content item (The sensors identify the person authorized to view the content along with their location, and the display is then authorized to show the content to the user (¶¶ [50]-[58]).
Regarding claim 7, Kinjo discloses wherein the causing the second portion of the content item to be downloaded to the second computing device comprises identifying a content server that stores the content item (The PC acts as a home server to forward content to various TV sets where the portion is stored at the PC and/ or the digital TV itself. The TV is identified based on sensor and content ID information, therefore, the location of stored portion of the content is identified).
The device of claims 8-9, 12, and 14 recite similar features as those of the method of claims 1-2, 5, and 7, respectively, effectuated by the same, therefore, are rejected by the same analysis.
The computer program product of claims 15-16 and 19 recite similar features as those of the method of claims 1-2 and 5, respectively, effectuated by the same, therefore, are rejected by the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kinjo in view of Rodriguez et al., USPGPUB 2002/0168178 (hereinafter “Rodriguez”).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 11, Kinjo discloses updating the user profile to indicate the output, via the second computing device, of the second portion of the content item (¶¶ [60]-[63]). Kinjo is silent on causing the second computing device to delete the second portion of the content item.
However, Rodriguez discloses a method, system, and computer program product for distributing content to multiple devices, on a network, to users, including ability to not only watch content but also record (via Personal Video Recorders (PVR)) wherein the users are enabled to watch/ record, but also provided with the system ability to delete the content once watched (¶ [86]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to modify the system of Kinjo to delete the viewed content, as taught by Rodriguez, in order to more effectively utilize the storage systems utilizations.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, the system of Kinjo and Rodriguez discloses wherein the causing the second portion of the content item to be downloaded to the second computing device comprises causing the second computing device to record the content item during a broadcast of the content item (Rodriguez: ¶ [99]).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kinjo in view of Rodriguez, further in view of Fenwick Jr. et al., USPGPUB 2003/0204852 (hereinafter “Fenwick”).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, the system of Kinjo and Rodriguez is silent on removing, from a user menu, an indication of the content item.
However, Fenwick discloses a method, system, and computer program product for distribution of content with interactive displays keeping track of user’s transactions/ viewing profile (¶¶ [12], [15], [21]-[22]) and removing, from a user menu, an indication of the content item (¶ [41]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to modify the system of Kinjo and Rodriguez with Fenwick’s teaching in order to eliminate clutter and present a more concise and easier to select listings of programming options.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kinjo in view of Fenwick.
Regarding claim 18 Kinjo is silent on removing, from a user menu, an indication of the content item.
However, Fenwick discloses a method, system, and computer program product for distribution of content with interactive displays keeping track of user’s transactions/ viewing profile (¶¶ [12], [15], [21]-[22]) and removing, from a user menu, an indication of the content item (¶ [41]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to modify the system of Kinjo with Fenwick’s teaching in order to eliminate clutter and present a more concise and easier to select listings of programming options.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R MARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-7 ET flex.
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 J 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.
/JAMES R MARANDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421