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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1–20 have been submitted for examination.
Claims 1–20 have been examined and rejected.
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 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,589,109.
US 18/982,908 Claim 1
US 11,589,109 Claim 1
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
using at least one steganographically-encoded timestamp in a media stream transmitted to a media client as a basis to determine a transmission delay for media-stream transmission to the media client; and
using at least one steganographically-encoded timestamp in a media stream transmitted to a media client as a basis to determine a transmission delay for media-stream transmission to the media client; and
using the determined transmission delay as a basis to facilitate control over whether the media client implements dynamic content modification.
providing the determined transmission delay as a basis to facilitate control over whether to have the media client implement dynamic content modification.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,589,109. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1, 8, and 14 are anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table above. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Claims 2–7, 9–13, and 15–20 contain similar subject matter as patented claims 2–6, 8–12, and 14–20 respectively, and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,234,049.
US 18/982,908 Claim 1
US 11,234,049 Claim 1
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
using at least one steganographically-encoded timestamp in a media stream transmitted to a media client as a basis to determine a transmission delay for media-stream transmission to the media client; and
using at least one steganographically-encoded timestamp in a media stream transmitted to a media client as a basis to determine a transmission delay for media-stream transmission to the media client; and
using the determined transmission delay as a basis to facilitate control over whether the media client implements dynamic content modification.
providing the determined transmission delay as a basis to facilitate control over whether to have the media client implement dynamic content modification,
wherein the control over whether to have the media client implement dynamic content modification comprises
(i) making a determination of whether determined transmission delay is at least as long as a predefined threshold delay,
(ii) if the determination is affirmative, then, based at least on the determination, causing the media client to implement dynamic content modification, and
(iii) if the determination is negative, then, based at least on the determination, not causing the media client to implement dynamic content modification.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,234,049. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1, 8, and 14 are anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table above. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Claims 2–7, 9–13, and 15–20 contain similar subject matter as patented claims 2–6, 8–10, and 12–18 respectively, and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,863,817.
US 18/982,908 Claim 1
US 11,863,817 Claim 1
A method comprising:
A computing system comprising: a network communication interface; a processing unit; non-transitory data storage; and program instructions stored in the non-transitory data storage and executable by the processing unit to carry out operations including:
using at least one steganographically-encoded timestamp in a media stream transmitted to a media client as a basis to determine a transmission delay for media-stream transmission to the media client; and
using at least one steganographically-encoded timestamp in a media stream transmitted to a media client as a basis to determine a transmission delay for media-stream transmission to the media client, and
using the determined transmission delay as a basis to facilitate control over whether the media client implements dynamic content modification.
providing the determined transmission delay as a basis to facilitate control over whether to have the media client implement dynamic content modification.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,863,817. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1, 8, and 14 are anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table above. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Claims 2–7, 9–13, and 15–20 contain similar subject matter as patented claims 2–6, 8–12, and 14–20 respectively, and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,206,936.
US 18/982,908 Claim 1
US 12,206,936 Claim 1
A method comprising:
Non-transitory data storage storing program instructions executable by one or more processors to carry out operations comprising:
using at least one steganographically-encoded timestamp in a media stream transmitted to a media client as a basis to determine a transmission delay for media-stream transmission to the media client; and
using at least one steganographically-encoded timestamp in a media stream transmitted to a media client as a basis to determine a transmission delay for media-stream transmission to the media client, and
using the determined transmission delay as a basis to facilitate control over whether the media client implements dynamic content modification.
providing the determined transmission delay as a basis to facilitate control over whether to have the media client implement dynamic content modification.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,206,936. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1, 8, and 14 are anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table above. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Claims 2–7, 9–13, and 15–20 contain similar subject matter as patented claims 2–6, 8–12, and 14–20 respectively, and are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B PIERORAZIO whose telephone number is (571)270-3679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8am - 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 5712704195. 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.
/MICHAEL B. PIERORAZIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426