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 .
This office action is in reply to amendment filed on 07/08/2026. Claims 51-53, 61 and 62 have been amended. Claims 51-70 are pending. .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 51 and 61 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art on record does not teach fails to teach “…determining that the approval has not been received from the device of the second user for the threshold period of time, causing display at the device of the first user message …”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Vieira teaches causing transmission, to a device of a second user who has authority to approve access to the blocked media asset for the first user, of a notification that the first user has requested access to the blocked media asset [column 7, line 35-column 8, line 42] and determining that approval to access the blocked media asset has not been received from the device of the second user for a threshold period of time [column 7, line 35-column 8, line 60]; and based at least in part on determining that the approval has not been received from the device of the second user for the threshold period of time generate and send a second request [column 8, lines 42-59]. Imanishi teaches based at least in part on determining that an approval has not been received, causing display at the device of the first user of a message indicating that the first user cannot access the blocked media asset [paragraph 0149]. The combination of Vieira and Imanishi teaches the claimed limitations.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 51-70 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,361,094 B2 (hereinafter 094’ patent). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 51-70 of the present application correspond to elements of claims 1-20 of the 094’ patent. Claims 51-70 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-20 of the 094’ patent because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of the 094’ patent.
Claims 51-70 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,331,901 B2 (hereinafter 901’ patent). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 51-70 of the present application correspond to elements of claims 1-20 of the 901’ patent. Claims 51-70 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-20 of the 901’ patent because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of the 901’ patent.
Claims 51-70 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,095,876 B2 (hereinafter 876’ patent). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 51-70 of the present application correspond to elements of claims 1-20 of the 876’ patent. Claims 51-70 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 1-20 of the 876’ patent because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of the 876’ patent.
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 51, 52, 56-58, 61, 62 and 66-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieira US 9,237,446 B2 in view of Imanishi et al. US 2008/0320558 A1 [hereinafter Imanishi].
As per claims 51 and 61, Vieira teaches a method comprising:
receiving a request to access a media asset that is blocked for a first user [column 7, line 35-column 8, line 42];
causing transmission, to a device of a second user who has authority to approve access to the blocked media asset for the first user, of a notification that the first user has requested access to the blocked media asset [column 7, line 35-column 8, line 42]; and
determining that approval to access the blocked media asset has not been received from the device of the second user for a threshold period of time [column 7, line 35-column 8, line 60]; and based at least in part on determining that the approval has not been received from the device of the second user for the threshold period of time generate and send a second request [column 8, lines 42-59].
In the same field of endeavor, Imanishi teaches a content viewing system comprising
based at least in part on determining that an approval has not been received, causing display at the device of the first user of a message indicating that the first user cannot access the blocked media asset [paragraph 0149]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the application to employ the teachings of Imanishi within the system of Vieira in order to improve usability of the system by providing notification to the user.
As per claim 52, Vieira further teaches the method wherein determining that the approval to access the blocked media asset has not been received comprises determining that the second user has not responded to the notification for a threshold period of time [column 7, line 35-column 8, line 42].
As per claim 56, Imanishi further teaches the method wherein determining that the approval to access the blocked media asset has not been received comprises receiving an indication that the approval for the first user to access the blocked media asset has been denied [paragraph 0149]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the application to employ the teachings of Imanishi within the system of Vieira in order to improve usability of the system by providing notification to the user.
As per claim 57, Vieira further teaches the method wherein the notification comprises at least one of: a genre of the media asset; a rating of the media asset; a link to a webpage associated with the media asset; a preview associated with the media asset; a personalized communication from the first user; or an indication why the media asset was blocked [column 7, line 35-column 8, line 42].
As per claim 58, Vieira further teaches the method wherein the notification comprises an indication of the first user and an indication of a title of the media asset [column 7, line 35-column 8, line 42].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 53-55 would be allowable if applicant overcomes the double patenting rejection indicated above.
Claims 59-60, 63-65, 69 and 70 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 and further overcoming the double patenting rejection indicated above.
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 BEEMNET W DADA whose telephone number is (571)272-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at 571-270-3351. 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.
BEEMNET W. DADA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2435
/BEEMNET W DADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
