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 .
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, 9 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,904. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed elements of claims 1, 9 and 17 of the instant application are broader in scope and already patented scope of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,904.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,991,230. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed elements of claims 1, 9 and 17 of the instant application are broader in scope and already patented scope of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,991,230.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 14 and 20 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lok et al. (Pub No US 2023/0080458) in view of Osorio et al. (Pub No US 2008/0072250). Hereinafter, referenced as Lok and Osorio, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Lok discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a user request for a content item (e.g. internet content) from a user equipment (UE) (e.g. end user device 332… 336) of a user associated with a multi-dwelling unit (MDU) (Paragraphs [0038] [0039] figure 3; end user device 332… 336 in multi-dwell unit 330 requesting content);
identifying an MDU network segment to which the UE is connected (Paragraphs [0037] [0038] figure 3; multi-dwell tenant units 330, 360 assigned to their corresponding virtual residential gateway 323, 324… 326);
identifying an integrated user-network segment profile associated with the user (Paragraphs [0014] [0040] [0042] figure 3; each subscriber account being associated with a unique organizational unit assigned a unique network segment);
identifying a user segment to which the user belongs, based on the integrated user-network segment profile (Paragraphs [0014] [0040] [0042] figure 3; e.g. user account);
determining that the requested content item is accessible by the user (e.g. subscriber authentication credentials), based on the MDU network segment (e.g. virtual residential gateway 323, 324… 326 segments) and the user segment (Paragraphs [0014] [0040] [0042] figure 3; each subscriber account being associated with a unique organizational unit assigned a unique network segment);
and providing access to the requested content item to the UE over the MDU network segment (Paragraphs [0011] figure 3; providing requested content to end user device 332 from its assigned virtual residential gateway 323, 324,… 326 based on subscriber authentication credentials).
However, it is noted that Lok is silent to explicitly disclose that the user request is a user request for streaming a content item.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Osorio discloses that the user request is a user request for streaming a content item (Paragraphs [0013] [0046] figure 1; distributing content over on multiple dwelling units (MDUs), wherein the content distributed to user devices may include streaming video; paragraphs [0020] [0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lok by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Osorio, for the predictable result of distributing well known types of services in multiple dwelling units (MDUs), including video streaming, that would allow the user to efficiently utilize the MDU network and increase revenue.
Regarding claim 2, Lok and Osorio disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Lok discloses that the MDU network segment is identified based on a network identity of the MDU network segment, the network identity is selected from a Basic Service Set Identifier (BSSID), a Service Set Identifier (SSID), a Media Access Control (MAC) address, or a combination thereof (Paragraph [0048] figure 3; e.g. BSSID).
Regarding claim 3, Lok and Osorio disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Lok discloses that the MDU network segment is a virtual local area network (VLAN) (Paragraphs [0036] [0039] figure 3; e.g. VLAN assignments for each virtual residential gateway 323, 324…326).
Regarding claim 7, Lok and Osorio disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Lok discloses the MDU network segment (Paragraphs [0037] [0038] figure 3; multi-dwell tenant units 330, 360 assigned to their corresponding virtual residential gateway 323, 324… 326).
However, it is noted that Lok is silent to explicitly disclose that the content item is a shared recording stored in a local storage device within the MDU and connected to the MDU network.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Osorio discloses that the content item is a shared recording stored in a local storage device (e.g. property server 502) within the MDU and connected to the MDU network (Paragraphs [0012] [0013] figure 5; property server 502 located at a multiple dwelling unit (MDU), wherein the property server 502 stores content, e.g. movies, for distribution to the user devices, wherein content module library 904 in property server 502 provides access to digital media information available for distribution to end users; paragraph [0090] figure 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lok by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Osorio, for the predictable result of implementing a local server that may store content to stream to multiple clients, saving the network distribution bandwidth and its resources.
Regarding claim 8, Lok and Osorio disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Lok discloses providing access to the requested content item to the UE (Paragraphs [0011] figure 3; providing requested content to end user device 332 from its assigned virtual residential gateway 323, 324,… 326 based on subscriber authentication credentials).
However, it is noted that Lok is silent to explicitly disclose sending a personalized user interface template for content streaming to the UE, the personalized user interface template configured to display the requested content item and provide designated interactive features.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Osorio discloses sending a personalized user interface template for content streaming to the UE, the personalized user interface template configured to display the requested content item and provide designated interactive features (Paragraphs [0054] [0055] [0067] figure 2; customized and personalized GUI experience for each viewer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lok by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Osorio, for the predictable result of allowing the customization of each interface implementing it own unit set of functions and features (Osorio – paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claims 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16, Lok and Osorio disclose all the limitations of claims 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16; therefore, claims 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8, respectively.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Lok and Osorio disclose all the limitations of claims 17 and 18; therefore, claims 17 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 1 and 2, respectively.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lok and Osorio further in view of Deal et al. (Pub No US 2025/0024114). Hereinafter, referenced as Deal.
Regarding claim 4, Lok and Osorio disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Lok discloses that the integrated user-network segment profile (Paragraphs [0014] [0040] [0042] figure 3; each subscriber account being associated with a unique organizational unit assigned a unique network segment).
However, it is noted that Lok and Osorio are silent to explicitly disclose identify based on user information included in the user request, the user information indicates a user identity and a UE identity
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Deal discloses identify based on user information included in the user request, the user information indicates a user identity and a UE identity (Paragraphs [003] [0085]; a media content request may include identifiers such as ID for the client device and ID of the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lok and Osorio by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Deal, for the predictable result of implementing user and device identification schemes that would easily allow the content distribution system to ID who is sending the request for content.
Regarding claim 12, Lok, Osorio and Deal disclose all the limitations of claim 12; therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 4.
Claims 5, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lok and Osorio further in view of Smith (Pub No US 2025/0008328 – claiming priority to provisional application 63/524,314 filed on Jun 30, 2023). Hereinafter, referenced as Smith.
Regarding claim 5, Lok and Osorio disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Lok discloses that the integrated user-network segment profile (Paragraphs [0014] [0040] [0042] figure 3; each subscriber account being associated with a unique organizational unit assigned a unique network segment).
However, it is noted that Lok and Osorio are silent to explicitly disclose that the integrated user-network segment profile indicates a specific range of streaming bitrate and a specific level of quality of service (QoS) for the requested content item, wherein providing access to the requested content item to the UE further comprises delivering the content item to the UE according to the specific range of streaming bitrate and the specific level of QoS.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Smith discloses that the integrated user-network segment profile (e.g. network slice) indicates a specific range of streaming bitrate (e.g. assign a constant bit rate) and a specific level of quality of service (QoS) for the requested content item (e.g. defined QoS), wherein providing access to the requested content item to the UE further comprises delivering the content item to the UE according to the specific range of streaming bitrate and the specific level of QoS (Paragraphs [0578] [0586]; allocate to a group a network slice that may be dynamically adjusted based on the application requirements within the group, wherein a constant bit rate (CBR) or defined bandwidth to the group with a defined QoS to that group may be assigned).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lok and Osorio by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Smith, for the predictable result of guarantees a quality of service to the viewers in order to avoid content presentation errors, further increasing user satisfaction and experience.
Regarding claim 13, Lok, Osorio and Smith disclose all the limitations of claim 13; therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, Lok, Osorio and Smith disclose all the limitations of claim 19; therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm EST..
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424