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.
Claim 52 and 62 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 52 and 62 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 12,192,568 in view of Hubner et al. (US 2015/0037011 A1).
Present claims 18/967,811
52. A method comprising:
monitoring a plurality of components connected to a home network;
detecting a signal from one of the plurality of components;
determining that the signal is associated with a condition, wherein the condition being met causes a particular action to be performed on a media device connected to the home network;
determining whether the signal was received within a time threshold; and
based at least in part on determining that the signal was received within the time threshold, determining that the condition is met and causing the media device to perform the particular action.
U.S. Patent No. 12,192,568
52. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a first request to access first content provided via a first content source;
determining, while causing the first content to be played based on the first request, that a second request to access second content available via a second content source has been received;
in response to (i) determining the second request has been received and (ii) determining the first content has been played for at least a threshold amount of time when the second request was received, performing a particular action to the first content;
determining, while causing the second content to be played based on the second request, that a third request to cease playing of the second content has been received; and
in response to (iii) determining the third request has been received and (iv) determining the second content has not been played for at least the threshold amount of time, declining to perform the particular action to the second content.
U.S. Patent No. 12,192,568 claim 52 and 62 does not explicitly disclose monitoring a plurality of components connected to a home network; and detecting a signal from one of the plurality of components. Claim 62 is analyzed for the similar features found in claim 52.
Hubner discloses that it was known to monitor a plurality of components connected to a home network (See Fig 2 and [0026-0029]) and detecting a signal from one of a plurality of components (See [0024] [0033]).
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 claims with the known methods of Hubner predictably resulting in monitoring a plurality of components connected to a home network; and detecting a signal from one of the plurality of components 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 recording content on multiple storage devices throughout a premise as suggested by Hubner.
Claim 52 and 62 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 52 and 62 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 11,765,422 in view of Hubner et al. (US 2015/0037011 A1).
Present claims 18/967,811
52. A method comprising:
monitoring a plurality of components connected to a home network;
detecting a signal from one of the plurality of components;
determining that the signal is associated with a condition, wherein the condition being met causes a particular action to be performed on a media device connected to the home network;
determining whether the signal was received within a time threshold; and
based at least in part on determining that the signal was received within the time threshold, determining that the condition is met and causing the media device to perform the particular action.
U.S. Patent No. 11,765,422
52. A method comprising:
determining, during playing of a media asset and prior to performing an action related to storage of the media asset, that a request to cease playing of the media asset is received;
determining that the media asset has been displayed for an amount of time exceeding a threshold amount of time; and
in response to (a) determining the request to cease playing of the media asset received and (b) determining the media asset has been displayed for the amount of time exceeding the threshold amount of time, performing an action related to storage of the media asset.
U.S. Patent No. 11,765,422 claim 52 and 62 do not explicitly disclose monitoring a plurality of components connected to a home network; and detecting a signal from one of the plurality of components. Claim 62 is analyzed for the similar features found in claim 52.
Hubner discloses that it was known to monitor a plurality of components connected to a home network (See Fig 2 and [0026-0029]) and detecting a signal from one of a plurality of components (See [0024] [0033]).
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 claims with the known methods of Hubner predictably resulting in monitoring a plurality of components connected to a home network; and detecting a signal from one of the plurality of components 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 recording content on multiple storage devices throughout a premise as suggested by Hubner.
Claim 52 and 62 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 52 and 62 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 11,159,843 in view of Hubner et al. (US 2015/0037011 A1).
Present claims 18/967,811
52. A method comprising:
monitoring a plurality of components connected to a home network;
detecting a signal from one of the plurality of components;
determining that the signal is associated with a condition, wherein the condition being met causes a particular action to be performed on a media device connected to the home network;
determining whether the signal was received within a time threshold; and
based at least in part on determining that the signal was received within the time threshold, determining that the condition is met and causing the media device to perform the particular action.
U.S. Patent No. 11,159,843
52. A method for storing content, the method comprising:
accessing, at a first time, a media asset received from a content source;
determining an amount of time the media asset has been accessed since the first time;
comparing the determined amount of time to a threshold value associated with the media asset; and
in response to determining that the determined amount of time exceeds the threshold value:
determining whether a request to cease access of the media asset is received; and
in response to determining that the request to cease access of the media asset has been received, performing an action related to storage of the media asset before executing a command corresponding to the request to cease access of the media asset.
U.S. Patent No. 11,159,843 claim 52 and 62 do not explicitly disclose monitoring a plurality of components connected to a home network; and detecting a signal from one of the plurality of components. Claim 62 is analyzed for the similar features found in claim 52.
Hubner discloses that it was known to monitor a plurality of components connected to a home network (See Fig 2 and [0026-0029]) and detecting a signal from one of a plurality of components (See [0024] [0033]).
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 claims with the known methods of Hubner predictably resulting in monitoring a plurality of components connected to a home network; and detecting a signal from one of the plurality of components 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 recording content on multiple storage devices throughout a premise as suggested by Hubner.
Claim 52 and 62 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,869,084 in view of Hubner et al. (US 2015/0037011 A1).
Present claims 18/967,811
52. A method comprising:
monitoring a plurality of components connected to a home network;
detecting a signal from one of the plurality of components;
determining that the signal is associated with a condition, wherein the condition being met causes a particular action to be performed on a media device connected to the home network;
determining whether the signal was received within a time threshold; and
based at least in part on determining that the signal was received within the time threshold, determining that the condition is met and causing the media device to perform the particular action.
U.S. Patent No. 10,869,084
1. A method for storing content, the method comprising:
accessing, at a first time, a media asset received from a content source;
determining a length of time the media asset has been accessed since the first time;
comparing the determined length of time to a threshold value associated with the media asset; and
in response to determining that the determined length of time exceeds the threshold value:
determining whether a user request to access a different media asset from a different content source is received; and
in response to determining that the user request to access the different media asset has been received, performing an action corresponding to storage of the media asset before executing a command corresponding to the user request to access the different media asset.
U.S. Patent No. 10,869,084 claim 52 and 62 do not explicitly disclose monitoring a plurality of components connected to a home network; and detecting a signal from one of the plurality of components. Claim 62 is analyzed for the similar features found in claim 52.
Hubner discloses that it was known to monitor a plurality of components connected to a home network (See Fig 2 and [0026-0029]) and detecting a signal from one of a plurality of components (See [0024] [0033]).
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 claims with the known methods of Hubner predictably resulting in monitoring a plurality of components connected to a home network; and detecting a signal from one of the plurality of components 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 recording content on multiple storage devices throughout a premise as suggested by Hubner.
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) 52-54, 56-57, 59-64, 66-67, 69-71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 2008/0025694 A1) in view of Hubner et al. (US 2015/0037011 A1).
Regarding claim 52 and 62, Kang discloses a method and system comprising:
Input/output circuitry (See [0052]) configured to:
detecting a signal from a component (See [0017] [0060-0064] determining that a channel change command is input while on a first channel;
determining that the signal is associated with a condition, wherein the condition being met causes a particular action to be performed on a media device connected to the home network (See Fig 2 and [0066-0067] if a program was viewed more than 10 minutes then the program is received to a storage unit.);
determining whether the signal was received within a time threshold (See Fig 2 and [0017] [0060-0064] determining that a channel change command is input while on a first channel. See [0066-0067] determining if a program was viewed more than 10 minutes); and
based at least in part on determining that the signal was received within the time threshold, determining that the condition is met and causing the media device to perform the particular action (See Fig 2 and [0066-0067] if a program was viewed more than 10 minutes then the program is received to a storage unit. Determining the program was viewed more than ten minutes.).
Kang does not explicitly disclose monitoring a plurality of components connected to a home network; and detecting a signal from one of the plurality of components.
Hubner discloses that it was known to monitor a plurality of components connected to a home network (See Fig 2 and [0026-0029]) and detecting a signal from one of a plurality of components (See [0024] [0033]).
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 Kang with the known methods of HUbner predictably resulting in monitoring a plurality of components connected to a home network; and detecting a signal from one of the plurality of components 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 recording content on multiple storage devices throughout a premise as suggested by Hubner.
Regarding claim 53 and 63, Kang and Hubner disclose the method of claim 52, wherein the signal is a second signal, the method further comprising:
detecting a first signal from one of the plurality of components prior to detecting the second signal (See Kang [0061] when the power is applied the tuner receives an initial channel. Switching to a first channel would also read on a first request); and
determining the time elapsed between detecting the first signal and detecting the second signal (See Kang [0017] [0060-0064] determining that a channel change command is input while on a first channel. See [0066-0067] determining if a program was viewed more than 10 minutes).
Regarding claim 54 and 64, Kang and Hubner further disclose the method of claim 53, wherein the determining whether the signal was received within the time threshold comprises:
comparing the time elapsed between detecting the first signal and detecting the second signal to the time threshold (See Kang [0017] [0060-0064] determining that a channel change command is input while on a first channel. See [0066-0067] determining if a program was viewed more than 10 minutes).
Regarding claim 56 and 66, Kang and Hubner further disclose the method of claim 52, wherein the signal from one of the plurality of components is at least one of: activation of a door sensor, activation of a lighting system, or activation of a remote control function. (See [0002] [0018])
Regarding claim 57 and 67, Kang and Hubner further disclose the method of claim 52, wherein the causing performance of the particular action on the media device comprises causing at least one of: initiating playing of media content, automatically storing media content, or displaying a user prompt (See Kang [0017] [0060-0064] determining that a channel change command is input while on a first channel. See [0066-0067] determining if a program was viewed more than 10 minutes).
Regarding claim 59 and 69, Kang and Hubner further disclose the method of claim 52, wherein the signal from the one of the plurality of components is a first signal, and wherein the particular action is performed after determining that a second signal was received after the first signal (See Kang [0017] [0060-0064] determining that a channel change command is input while on a first channel. See [0066-0067] determining if a program was viewed more than 10 minutes. See [0064] a channel change is again input the control unit 160 checks a viewing time of each channel by use of the timer function, and allocates a tuner of the channel of which the channel change time is shortest, based on the checked viewing time of each channel.).
Regarding claim 60 and 70, Kang and Hubner further disclose the method of claim 52, wherein the time threshold is at least one of: a predefined threshold, a user-defined threshold, or a dynamic threshold (See Kang [0064] stop recording of a channel with the shortest channel change time reads on a dynamic threshold).
Regarding claim 61 and 71, Kang and Hubner further disclose the method of claim 52, wherein the time threshold is a dynamic threshold that changes based on at least one of: the time of day or the one of the plurality of components from which the signal was received (See Kang [0064] the threshold for stopping a recording is dynamic based on a channel change and a shortest channel change time from a control unit).
Claim(s) 55 and 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 2008/0025694 A1) in view of Hubner et al. (US 2015/0037011 A1) in view of Itoh et al. (US 2002/0069403 A1).
Regarding claim 55 and 65, Kang and Hubner disclose the method of claim 52, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining whether the signal was received within the time threshold comprises: comparing a time at which the signal was received to a current a time of day.
Itoh discloses that it was known to compare a time at which a signal was received to a time of day (See [0080]).
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 combination with the known methods of Itoh predictably resulting in comparing a time at which the signal was received to a current a time of day 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 comparing a channel change event to a time of day in order to store history information as suggested by Itoh.
Claim(s) 58 and 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 2008/0025694 A1) in view of Hubner et al. (US 2015/0037011 A1) in view of Manchester et al. (US 2015/0163559 A1).
Regarding claim 58 and 68, Kang and Hubner disclose the method of claim 57, but do not explicitly disclose further comprising: monitoring user activity based on a plurality of signals from the plurality of components of a home network; and based at least in part on determining that a user is inactive, transmitting a command to the media device to cease playing the media content.
Manchester discloses that it was known to monitor user activity and based on a period of inactivity send a power off indication message to a control device (See [0132]).
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 combination with the known methods of Manchester predictably resulting in monitoring user activity based on a plurality of signals from the plurality of components of a home network; and based at least in part on determining that a user is inactive, transmitting a command to the media device to cease playing the media content 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 saving resources as suggested by Manchester.
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