DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,800.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,582,498.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,570,521.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,272,235.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,265,589.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,290,763.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,277,669.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,623,793.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,582,243.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,560,733.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,567,846.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,154,296.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,277,937.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,149,015.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,695,976 in view of Laraki (US 2003/0233329).
Patent No. 11,695,976 discloses most of the claim except transmitting, from the device, to a digital television service provider system a request for electronic authorization.
Laraki discloses the above missing limitation; a mobile user requests subscription content from content provider and the content provider determines whether the mobile user is authorized to view the content; see at least paragraph 0036.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Patent No. 11,695,976 by the teachings of Laraki by having the above limitation so to be able to provide subscription content services to mobile devices; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,264,303 in view of Laraki (US 2003/0233329).
Patent No. 10,264,303 discloses most of the claim except transmitting, from the device, to a digital television service provider system a request for electronic authorization.
Laraki discloses the above missing limitation; a mobile user requests subscription content from content provider and the content provider determines whether the mobile user is authorized to view the content; see at least paragraph 0036.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Patent No. 10,264,303 by the teachings of Laraki by having the above limitation so to be able to provide subscription content services to mobile devices; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,88,288 in view of Laraki (US 2003/0233329).
Patent No. 9,88,288 discloses most of the claim except transmitting, from the device, to a digital television service provider system a request for electronic authorization.
Laraki discloses the above missing limitation; a mobile user requests subscription content from content provider and the content provider determines whether the mobile user is authorized to view the content; see at least paragraph 0036.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Patent No. 9,88,288 by the teachings of Laraki by having the above limitation so to be able to provide subscription content services to mobile devices; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,894,417 in view of Laraki (US 2003/0233329).
Patent No. 9,894,417 discloses most of the claim except transmitting, from the device, to a digital television service provider system a request for electronic authorization.
Laraki discloses the above missing limitation; a mobile user requests subscription content from content provider and the content provider determines whether the mobile user is authorized to view the content; see at least paragraph 0036.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Patent No. 9,894,417 by the teachings of Laraki by having the above limitation so to be able to provide subscription content services to mobile devices; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,894,419 in view of Laraki (US 2003/0233329).
Patent No. 9,894,419 discloses most of the claim except transmitting, from the device, to a digital television service provider system a request for electronic authorization.
Laraki discloses the above missing limitation; a mobile user requests subscription content from content provider and the content provider determines whether the mobile user is authorized to view the content; see at least paragraph 0036.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Patent No. 9,894,419 by the teachings of Laraki by having the above limitation so to be able to provide subscription content services to mobile devices; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,936,240 in view of Laraki (US 2003/0233329).
Patent No. 9,936,240 discloses most of the claim except transmitting, from the device, to a digital television service provider system a request for electronic authorization.
Laraki discloses the above missing limitation; a mobile user requests subscription content from content provider and the content provider determines whether the mobile user is authorized to view the content; see at least paragraph 0036.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Patent No. 9,936,240 by the teachings of Laraki by having the above limitation so to be able to provide subscription content services to mobile devices; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,635,429 in view of Laraki (US 2003/0233329).
Patent No. 9,635,429 discloses most of the claim except transmitting, from the device, to a digital television service provider system a request for electronic authorization.
Laraki discloses the above missing limitation; a mobile user requests subscription content from content provider and the content provider determines whether the mobile user is authorized to view the content; see at least paragraph 0036.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Patent No. 9,635,429 by the teachings of Laraki by having the above limitation so to be able to provide subscription content services to mobile devices; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,640,902 in view of Laraki (US 2003/0233329).
Patent No. 9,640,902 discloses most of the claim except transmitting, from the device, to a digital television service provider system a request for electronic authorization.
Laraki discloses the above missing limitation; a mobile user requests subscription content from content provider and the content provider determines whether the mobile user is authorized to view the content; see at least paragraph 0036.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Patent No. 9,640,902 by the teachings of Laraki by having the above limitation so to be able to provide subscription content services to mobile devices; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,654,833 in view of Laraki (US 2003/0233329).
Patent No. 9,654,833 discloses most of the claim except transmitting, from the device, to a digital television service provider system a request for electronic authorization.
Laraki discloses the above missing limitation; a mobile user requests subscription content from content provider and the content provider determines whether the mobile user is authorized to view the content; see at least paragraph 0036.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Patent No. 9,654,833 by the teachings of Laraki by having the above limitation so to be able to provide subscription content services to mobile devices; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,648,390 in view of Laraki (US 2003/0233329).
Patent No. 9,648,390 discloses most of the claim except transmitting, from the device, to a digital television service provider system a request for electronic authorization.
Laraki discloses the above missing limitation; a mobile user requests subscription content from content provider and the content provider determines whether the mobile user is authorized to view the content; see at least paragraph 0036.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Patent No. 9,648,390 by the teachings of Laraki by having the above limitation so to be able to provide subscription content services to mobile devices; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,570,500 in view of Laraki (US 2003/0233329).
Patent No. 11,570,500 discloses most of the claim except transmitting, from the device, to a digital television service provider system a request for electronic authorization.
Laraki discloses the above missing limitation; a mobile user requests subscription content from content provider and the content provider determines whether the mobile user is authorized to view the content; see at least paragraph 0036.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Patent No. 11,570,500 by the teachings of Laraki by having the above limitation so to be able to provide subscription content services to mobile devices; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7-4 ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YASSIN ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426