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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12192552. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are broader in scope than the claims in conflicting U.S. Patent No. 12192552.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, of the instant application corresponds to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, respectively of conflicting U.S. Patent No. 12192552.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, change “the visited” to –the second--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacella (2011/0078287) in view of Gosalia (2017/0262837).
As for claims 1, 14, and 18, Pacella discloses a method for controlling media-content presentation, the method comprising:
detecting, by a computing system (provider device 120 + content provider device 140), that a media-player device (user device 110: STB, laptop, smartphone; [0023]) is connected with a media-presentation device (television) at the visited location (Referring to Fig. 4, in response to connection 410, provider device 120 retrieves geographic location of user device 110 ([0051]).); and
responsive to the detecting, causing, by the computing system (provider device 120 + content provider device 140), the media-player device to output, for presentation by the media-presentation device at the second location (current location), media content selected (custom content) by the computing system based on the media-player device having moved from the first location to the second location (Based on the geographic location, advertisements and content localized for user device 110 is provided ([0029]). Custom content is provided based on the user device’s location ([0055], [0083], [0086]).).
However, Pacella fails to disclose:
Detecting that a media player device has moved from a first location to a second location;
In an analogous art, Gosalia discloses detecting that a media player device has moved from a first location to a second location (The user device detects based on GPS that the user has moved to a second location; [0037]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pacella’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Gosalia, for the advantage of refreshing the token accordingly based on the new location being a trusted or unfamiliar location.
As for claim 2, Pacella discloses wherein the media-presentation device comprises a display device, and wherein the media content comprises video content ([0023], [0051], [0111]).
As for claim 3, the modified Pacella discloses wherein detecting that the media-player device has moved from the first location to the second location and that the media-player device is connected with a media-presentation device at the second location comprises:
determining a current location of the media-player device when the media-player device is connected with the media-presentation device (Pacella: Based on the geographic location, advertisements and content localized for user device 110 is provided ([0029]). Custom content is provided based on the user device’s location ([0055], [0083], [0086]).);
comparing the determined current location of the media-player device with the first location (Gosalia: The user device detects based on GPS that the user has moved to a second location; [0037]); and
determining, based on the comparing, that the media-player device has moved from the first location to the current location, wherein the current location defines the second location (Gosalia: The user device detects based on GPS that the user has moved to a second location; [0037]).
As for claim 4, the modified Pacella wherein detecting that the media-player device has moved from the first location to the second location and that the media-player device is connected with a media-presentation device at the second location comprises:
detecting a local connection of the media-player device with the media-presentation device (Pacella: Referring to Fig. 4, in response to connection 410, provider device 120 retrieves geographic location of user device 110 ([0051]).)
detecting media player device at the second location (Gosalia: The user device detects based on GPS that the user has moved to a second location; [0037]);
As for claim 5, Pacella discloses wherein the computing system comprises the media-player device and a server platform in network communication with the media-player device ([0051]).
As for claim 8, Pacella discloses wherein causing the media-player device to output, for presentation by the media-presentation device, media content selected by the computing system based on the media-player device having moved from the first location to the second location comprises causing the media-player device to output, for presentation by the media-presentation device, a message that prompts a user of the media-player device to direct the media-player device to output, for presentation by the media-presentation device, information about the second location ([0055], [0029]).
As for claims 9, 16, and 20, Pacella discloses further comprising selecting by the computing system, based on the media-player device having moved from the first location to the second location, the media content to be output by the media-player device for presentation by the media-presentation device at the second location ([0055], [0029]).
As for claim 10, Pacella discloses wherein the selecting is based on a comparison of the second location with the first location ([0055], [0029]).
As for claim 11, Pacella discloses wherein the selecting comprises selecting content that describes an activity at the second location ([0055], [0029]).
As for claims 12 and 17, Pacella discloses wherein selecting the media content is based on data indicating content preference by one or more users who traveled from the first location to the second location ([0031]).
As for claim 13, Pacella discloses wherein the media-player device comprises an over-the-top (OTT) streaming-media-player device ([0023]).
Claim(s) 6-7, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacella and Gosalia as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogle (2016/0142765).
As for claims 6, 15, and 19, Pacella discloses wherein causing the media-player device to output, for presentation by the media-presentation device, media content selected by the computing system based on the media-player device having moved from the first location to the second location comprises causing the media-player device to output, for presentation by the media-presentation device (Content localized to current location; [0055]),
In an analogous art, Ogle discloses a welcome message welcoming a user to the second location (Fig. 1, [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pacella and Gosalia’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Ogle, for the advantage of generating a guest specific message to enhance the user’s stay.
As for claim 7, Ogle discloses further comprising:
determining that the media-player device has previously been at the second location (“Welcome Back John!” - Fig. 1, [0021]); and
based on the determining that the media-player device has previously been at the second location, making the welcome message a welcome-back message (“Welcome Back John!” - Fig. 1, [0021]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8567. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-3:00 PM.
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 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.
SUMAIYA A. CHOWDHURY
Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421