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 .
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 1, 10, and 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,938. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because features of the parent patent claims anticipate the features of the present claims. Claim 7 includes the features of independent claim 1.
Present Claims
1. A method comprising: ranking, by a computing device and based on content preference information, entries, from a plurality of manifest files, associated with upcoming content segments in a plurality of content items; and based on the ranked entries, switching output to a first content segment among the upcoming content segments.
10. A method comprising: causing, by a computing device, output of an option to select at least one of a plurality of content items based on a ranking of entries, from a plurality of manifest files, associated with upcoming content segments in the plurality of content items; and based on a user input selection, causing output of a content segment of the at least one of the plurality of content items.
16. An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: rank, based on content preference information, entries, from a plurality of manifest files, associated with upcoming content segments in a plurality of content items; and based on the ranked entries, switch output to a first content segment among the upcoming content segments.
U.S. Patent No. 12,184,938
1. An apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: based on an indication of a first event in a first entry in a first manifest file associated with a first content item, switch output from the first content item to a second content item; and after switching output to the second content item: monitor a plurality of manifest files associated with a plurality of content items; and based on an indication of a second event in a second entry in a manifest file of the plurality of manifest files, switch output to a content item associated with the manifest file.
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to:
determine, from the plurality of manifest files, a plurality of entries associated with upcoming content segments in the plurality of content items; and rank, based on user preferences, the plurality of entries; and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to switch output to the content item by: causing output of the content item based on the ranked plurality of entries.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,711,587. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because features of the parent patent claims anticipate the features of the present claims. Claim 4 includes the features of independent claim 1.
Present Claims
1. A method comprising: ranking, by a computing device and based on content preference information, entries, from a plurality of manifest files, associated with upcoming content segments in a plurality of content items; and based on the ranked entries, switching output to a first content segment among the upcoming content segments.
10. A method comprising: causing, by a computing device, output of an option to select at least one of a plurality of content items based on a ranking of entries, from a plurality of manifest files, associated with upcoming content segments in the plurality of content items; and based on a user input selection, causing output of a content segment of the at least one of the plurality of content items.
16. An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: rank, based on content preference information, entries, from a plurality of manifest files, associated with upcoming content segments in a plurality of content items; and based on the ranked entries, switch output to a first content segment among the upcoming content segments.
U.S. Patent No. 11,711,587
1. An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: receive a first manifest file, of a plurality of manifest files, associated with a first content item of a plurality of content items; based on determining that a manifest file tag for an upcoming first entry in the first manifest file indicates an insertion opportunity, switch output from the first content item to a second content item; and after switching output to the second content item: monitor the first manifest file and a second manifest file associated with the second content item; and switch output back to the first content item based on determining that the first manifest file includes a second entry indicating an end of the insertion opportunity.
4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to: determine, from the plurality of manifest files, entries associated with upcoming content segments in the plurality of content items; and rank the entries based on manifest file tags corresponding to the entries; and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to switch output to the second content item by: causing output of the second content item based on the ranked entries.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,277,665. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because features of the parent patent claims anticipate the features of the present claims. Claim 7 includes the features of independent claim 1.
Present Claims
1. A method comprising: ranking, by a computing device and based on content preference information, entries, from a plurality of manifest files, associated with upcoming content segments in a plurality of content items; and based on the ranked entries, switching output to a first content segment among the upcoming content segments.
10. A method comprising: causing, by a computing device, output of an option to select at least one of a plurality of content items based on a ranking of entries, from a plurality of manifest files, associated with upcoming content segments in the plurality of content items; and based on a user input selection, causing output of a content segment of the at least one of the plurality of content items.
16. An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: rank, based on content preference information, entries, from a plurality of manifest files, associated with upcoming content segments in a plurality of content items; and based on the ranked entries, switch output to a first content segment among the upcoming content segments.
U.S. Patent No. 11,277,665
1. A method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, first manifest file information associated with a first content item; based on determining that a manifest file tag for an upcoming first entry in the first manifest file information indicates an insertion opportunity, switching output from the first content item to a second content item; and after switching output to the second content item: monitoring the first manifest file information and second manifest file information associated with the second content item; and switching output back to the first content item based on determining that the first manifest file information includes a second entry indicating an end of the insertion opportunity.
7. A method comprising: receiving, by a user device, a plurality of manifest files associated with a plurality of content items; determining, from the plurality of manifest files, entries associated with upcoming content segments in the plurality of content items; ranking, based on content preference information, the entries; and based on the ranking the entries, causing the user device to switch output to a first content segment of the upcoming content segments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Navarro (US 2016/0088358 A1) in view of Loheide et al. (US 2019/0132627 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Garcia Navarro discloses a method comprising:
ranking, by a computing device and based on content preference information, entries, from a plurality of content, associated with upcoming content segments in a plurality of content items (See [0059] “Next” list are automatically recorded in the scheduled programming recommendation system. See [0075] candidate programs are ranked from highest to lowest and candidates having the highest ranked scores are then assigned to the Next list in rank order. See [0068] ranking programs [0080] candidate programs are ranked from highest to lowest and then assigned to the “Switch to” list in rank order.); and
based on the ranked entries, switching output to a first content segment among the upcoming content segments (See [0059-0064] if the viewer decides to switch to the channel there is an option to start from the beginning, see also [0090-0094]).
Garcia does not explicitly disclose:
ranking, by a computing device and based on content preference information, entries, from a plurality of manifest files, associated with upcoming content segments in a plurality of content items; and
based on the ranked entries, switching output to a first content segment among the upcoming content segments.
Loheide discloses that it was known to receive a manifest file for first content and based on determining upcoming portions of first content item (See [0043-0045] [0020] [0026] [0043]) switching to output to a second content item and monitoring the first manifest file information and second manifest file information associated with the second content item (See [0089-0091] [0107-0117]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Garcia with the known methods of Loheide predictably resulting in ranking, by a computing device and based on content preference information, entries, from a plurality of manifest files, associated with upcoming content segments in a plurality of content items; and based on the ranked entries, switching output to a first content segment among the upcoming content segments by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of providing content via short duration segment streams as suggested by Loheide.
Regarding claim 2, Garcia and Loheide disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the switching output is based on a user input selection (See [0059-0064] if the viewer decides to switch to the channel there is an option to start from the beginning).
Regarding claim 3, Garcia and Loheide disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the switching output comprises: causing a second computing device to output the first content segment (See Loheide [0033] [0056] server or proxy server).
Regarding claim 4, Garcia and Loheide disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the ranking the entries comprises: comparing manifest file tags, associated with the entries, to the content preference information (Loheide further discloses [0051-0058] [0091] manifest file tags, see [0070] preferences).
Regarding claim 5, Garcia and Loheide disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, based on the content preference information, a plurality of recording tasks associated with the plurality of content items; and assigning, based on a ranking of a subset of next entries in the plurality of manifest files, the plurality of recording tasks (See Garcia Navarro [0035] [0039-0041] higher priority media programs recorded at the expense of lower priority).
Regarding claim 6, Garcia Navarro and Loheide further disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, from the entries, a plurality of event types, wherein the ranking the entries is based on comparing the plurality of event types to the content preference information (See Garcia Navarro [0056] content type or genre).
Regarding claim 7, Garcia Navarro and Loheide disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the ranking the entries comprises: determining, from the entries, an advertisement entry comprising a first manifest file tag indicating an advertising event; determining, from the entries, a content entry; and ranking the content entry above the advertisement entry (See advertisement break tag [0068] [0071-0073]).
Regarding claim 8, Garcia Navarro and Loheide further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the ranking the entries comprises: determining a first entry, of the entries, indicating a first user preferred event and a second entry, of the entries, indicating a second user preferred event; and ranking, based on the content preference information, the first user preferred event above the second user preferred event (See Garcia Navarro [0035] [0039-0041] higher priority media programs recorded at the expense of lower priority).
Regarding claim 9, Garcia Navarro and Loheide further disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: recording, based on the ranked entries, one or more content segments of a content item (See Garcia Navarro [0035] [0039-0041] [0075] [0080] higher priority media programs recorded at the expense of lower priority).
Regarding claim 10, Garcia Navarro discloses a method comprising:
causing, by a computing device, output of an option to select at least one of a plurality of content items based on a ranking of entries (See [0039] user selecting programs to be recorded from ranked choices, [0056], [0061-0064]); and
based on a user input selection, causing output of a content segment of the at least one of the plurality of content items (See [0059-0064] if the viewer decides to switch to the channel there is an option to start from the beginning, see also [0090-0094]).
Garcia Navarro from a plurality of manifest files, associated with upcoming content segments in the plurality of content items.
Loheide discloses that it was known to receive a manifest file for first content and based on determining upcoming portions of first content item (See [0043-0045] [0020] [0026] [0043]) switching to output to a second content item and monitoring the first manifest file information and second manifest file information associated with the second content item (See [0089-0091] [0107-0117]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Garcia with the known methods of Loheide predictably resulting in a plurality of manifest files, associated with upcoming content segments in the plurality of content items by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of providing content via short duration segment streams as suggested by Loheide.
Regarding claim 11, Garcia Navarro and Loheide further disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the ranking of the entries is based on content preference information (See Garcia [0056] [0061]).
Regarding claim 12, Garcia Navarro and Loheide further disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the causing output of the content segment comprises: switching output from a first content item to the at least one of the plurality of content items (See Garcia [0059-0064] if the viewer decides to switch to the channel there is an option to start from the beginning, see also [0090-0094]).
Regarding claim 13, Garcia Navarro and Loheide disclose the method of claim 10, further comprising: determining, based on content preference information, a plurality of recording tasks associated with the plurality of content items (See Garcia Navarro [0035] [0039-0041] [0075] [0080] higher priority media programs recorded at the expense of lower priority); and assigning, based on a ranking of a subset of next entries in the plurality of manifest files, the plurality of recording tasks (See Loheide [0056] upcoming programs, content/media segments [0062-0063] and Garcia [0068] [0075] ranking highest to lowest).
Regarding claim 14, Garcia Navarro and Loheide The method of claim 10, further comprising: determining, from the entries, a plurality of event types, wherein the ranking of the entries is based on comparing the plurality of event types to content preference information (See Garcia Navarro [0056] content type or genre).
Regarding claim 15, Garcia Navarro and Loheide The method of claim 1, further comprising: recording, based on the ranking of the entries, one or more content segments of a content item of the plurality of content items (See Garcia Navarro [0035] [0039-0041] higher priority media programs recorded at the expense of lower priority).
Regarding claim 16, Garcia Navarro discloses an apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
rank, based on content preference information, entries, from a plurality of content, associated with upcoming content segments in a plurality of content items (See [0059] “Next” list are automatically recorded in the scheduled programming recommendation system. See [0075] candidate programs are ranked from highest to lowest and candidates having the highest ranked scores are then assigned to the Next list in rank order. See [0068] ranking programs [0080] candidate programs are ranked from highest to lowest and then assigned to the “Switch to” list in rank order.); and based on the ranked entries, switch output to a first content segment among the upcoming content segments (See [0059-0064] if the viewer decides to switch to the channel there is an option to start from the beginning, see also [0090-0094]).
Garcia Navarro does not disclose rank, based on content preference information, entries, from a plurality of manifest files, associated with upcoming content segments in a plurality of content items.
Loheide discloses that it was known to receive a manifest file for first content and based on determining upcoming portions of first content item (See [0043-0045] [0020] [0026] [0043]) switching to output to a second content item and monitoring the first manifest file information and second manifest file information associated with the second content item (See [0089-0091] [0107-0117]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Garcia with the known methods of Loheide predictably resulting in rank, based on content preference information, entries, from a plurality of manifest files, associated with upcoming content segments in a plurality of content items by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of providing content via short duration segment streams as suggested by Loheide.
Regarding claim 17, Garcia Navarro and Loheide disclose the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to switch output based on a user input selection (See Garcia [0059-0064] if the viewer decides to switch to the channel there is an option to start from the beginning, see also [0090-0094]).
Regarding claim 18, Garcia Navarro and Loheide disclose the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to switch output by: causing a computing device to output the first content segment (See Garcia [0059-0064] if the viewer decides to switch to the channel there is an option to start from the beginning, see also [0090-0094]).
Regarding claim 19, Garcia Navarro and Loheide disclose the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to rank the entries by causing: comparing manifest file tags, associated with the entries, to the content preference information (Loheide further discloses [0051-0058] [0091] manifest file tags, see [0070] preferences).
Regarding claim 20, Garcia Navarro and Loheide disclose the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: determine, from the entries, a plurality of event types, wherein the ranking the entries is based on comparing the plurality of event types to the content preference information (See Garcia Navarro [0035] [0039-0041] higher priority media programs recorded at the expense of lower priority).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO ALCON whose telephone number is (571)270-5668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-7:00pm.
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.
FERNANDO . ALCON
Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/FERNANDO ALCON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights