DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 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 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,826,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the instant application are broader than the claim in the ‘332 Patent (see In re Goodman).
Referring to claims 1-3 of the instant application, see claim 1 of the ‘332 Patent.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,501,212. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the instant application are broader than the claim in the ‘212 Patent (see In re Goodman).
Referring to claims 1-3 of the instant application, see claim 1 of the ‘212 Patent.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,771,825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the instant application are broader than the claim in the ‘825 Patent (see In re Goodman).
Referring to claims 1-3 of the instant application, see claim 1 of the ‘825.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,303,941. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the instant application are broader than the claim in the ‘941 Patent (see In re Goodman).
Referring to claims 1-3 of the instant application, see claim 1 of the ‘941.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,570,491. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the instant application are broader than the claim in the ‘491 Patent (see In re Goodman).
Referring to claims 1-3 of the instant application, see claim 1 of the ‘941.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,796. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the instant application are broader than the claim in the ‘796 Patent (see In re Goodman).
Referring to claims 1-3 of the instant application, see claim 1 of the ‘796.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 2 recites, “at least one machine readable medium”.
Applicant’s specification fails to state what defines a “machine readable medium” and therefore could include a signal per se, new policy has been issued by Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, David J. Kappos regarding this issue and states the following:
“The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).”
Therefore, since the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning, which includes signals per se in regards to a machine readable medium, the Examiner advises Applicant to add the term “non-transitory machine readable medium” to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Forsman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0269144) in view of Wadler et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0083527) in further view of Fay et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0311199).
Referring to claim 2, Forsman discloses at least one machine readable medium comprising instructions that when executed on a computing device cause the computing device to perform a method comprising:
receiving video (Fig. 4, el. 410 and Par. [0105] disclosing receives popularity data for videos posted on web sites);
displaying a single instance of a graphical user interface (GUI) (Fig. 7 and 8; Par. [0169] disclosing a user interface (UI) in a web-page form).
in response to user input supplied via the single instance of the GUI, determining the video is to be distributed to the first and second distribution channels (Par. [0029] and [0073] disclosing various users may upload video clips to the Integrated APS 156 through various channels; here the user makes the determination on which channel to upload or not upload) but not to the third distribution channel (Par. [0027], lines 8-13 disclosing not all users necessarily upload video reads on the negative limitation; see also Par. [0172], lines 6-10 disclosing a user who is viewing a video that he or she did not upload also reads on the negative limitation);
determining first and second characteristics for the video, the first and second characteristics selected from a group comprising file type, container type, video duration, video resolution, frame rate, video compression bit rate, and audio compression bit rate (Fig. 6, el. 630 and Par. [0161] — [0162] disclosing a video table that stores records providing information on the videos uploaded into the system);
transcoding the video into transcoded first video having a first format corresponding to the first distribution channel (Par. [0035] and [0043] disclosing transcoding video format in order for display according to the proper format);
transcoding the video into transcoded second video having a second format corresponding to the second distribution channel (Par. [0035] and [0043] disclosing transcoding video format in order for display according to the proper format), the first format unequal to the second format (Par. [0064] disclosing various different types of video format);
packaging first metadata and the transcoded first video into a first container and second metadata and the transcoded second video into a second container (Fig. 4, el. 440 and Par. [0108] — [0112] disclosing produce meta-data for videos based on data from web server/data determined by APS/APS administrator; Fig. 4, el. 450 and Par. [0113] disclosing convert video format to MPEG format; see also Fig. 5, el. 500 disclosing package structure);
and publishing the first container to the first distribution channel and the second container to the second distribution channel (Fig. 4, el. 460 and 470; Par. [0067] - [0068] and [0114] disclosing upload videos into VOD system).
Forsman does not disclose not transcoding the video into transcoded third video having a third format corresponding to the third distribution channel; and the graphical user interface (GUI) simultaneously provides a user with options to distribute the video to first, second, and third distribution channels.
Wadler discloses not transcoding the video into transcoded third video having a third format corresponding to the third distribution channel (Par. [0049] disclosing the system can decide whether a file is acceptable for transcoding using one or more pre-determined criteria, such as frame rate, dimensions, bitrate, and more. If a file with codecs and/or a container that meets the criteria, that the file be transcoded, or vice versa).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Forsman’s method by having pre-determined criteria for file transcoding, as taught by Wadler, in order to using a transcoder, video implementing a particular codec and container can be "transcoded" so the resulting file uses a specified codec and container (Wadler: Par. [0006]).
Forsman in view of Wadler does not disclose the graphical user interface (GUI) simultaneously provides a user with options to distribute the video to first, second, and third distribution channels.
Fay discloses the graphical user interface (GUI) simultaneously provides a user with options to upload content to selected servers (Par. [0035] disclosing wherein the user account set rules for share personal media dictate “where to place the media” e.g., YouTube, Facebook, etc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Forsman in view of Wadler’s method by providing options for user to select different servers for uploading contents, as taught by Fay, in order to allow user to have the flexibility to choose corresponding servers for storage and distribution of the shared contents as needed (Fay: Par. (0003)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON P SALCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7301. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am-10:00pm M-F (Flex Schedule).
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 on 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.
/Jason Salce/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Jason P Salce
Senior Examiner
Art Unit 2421
November 19, 2025